Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply (Consolidation) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading
thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

Cleethorpes Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Great Western Railway (Road Transport) Bill (by Order),

London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill (by Order),

London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill (by Order),

Southern Railway (Road Transport) Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, at Half-past Seven of the Clock.

Lincolnshire Rivers Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

EAST INDIA (BUDGET).

Address "For Return of the Budget of the Governor-General of India in Council for 1928–29."—[Earl Winterton.]

NATIONAL DEBT.

Return ordered,
Showing, for the financial years commencing the 1st day of April, 1880, the 1st day of April, 1890, the 1st day of April, 1900, and for each financial year thereafter,—

(1) The total amount of dead-weight Debt outstanding on the 1st day of April; the amounts which were made available in each year to 1927–28, inclusive, for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of the Debt, the Old Sinking Fund, and miscellaneous receipts; the gross amount of Debt redeemed; the amount of Debt created; and the net increase or decrease of Debt in the year;
2015
(2) A similar Statement in respect of other capital liabilities;
(3) A similar Statement in respect of the aggregate gross liabilities of the State (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 82, of Session 1927)."—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

UNITED STATES SHIPPING LINE.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On a point of Order. I put a question down to the President of the Board of Trade about the United States Shipping Line, for oral answer, and it has been altered to No. 1 in the questions for written answer. It was on the Paper yesterday as a question for oral answer, and it has been altered without any notification being given to me.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that this is the first I have heard of the matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will come to me afterwards on the point.

STATE-OWNED VESSELS (IMMUNITY).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade with what countries his Department is negotiating on the question of the immunity of shipping from process of law?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer is rather long, and the hon. and learned Member will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the negotiations would cover the position of the United States Shipping Line, and whether they will ascertain that this company is not registered under the Business Names Act, is not incorporated in this country, and that its right to plead diplomatic immunity has been sustained in the Court of Appeal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to the last part of the question, I think there is a question which came to me as a written question to which I have supplied an answer to-day, and so the hon. Member will get a considered reply. With regard to the first part of the question, the Convention would
cover all State-owned or operated shipping which, I understand, in the opinion of the jurists of all the lands concerned, was the relevant matter to consider.

Captain GARRO-JONES: If diplomatic immunity is held to cover the operations of State-owned shipping, would it also cover the operations of nationalised industries and the operations of Russian companies in this country which are State controlled.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The whole object of this Convention was that, where a Government either owned or chartered vessels, it should be subject to the same process of law as an individual who is engaged in that capacity. That is the whole object of the Convention.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the citizens of this country are deprived of their legal rights as against this line, although it gives no indication that it is anything but an ordinary trading concern, and can he take any steps to protect them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that I can answer that question other than to say that it has been the consistent practice of this country, by means of Petition of Right or other means, to give to the subjects of this and of other countries the fullest possible recourse to the Courts against ships owned or chartered by the Government.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That does not apply to the United States Line.

Following is the answer:

The draft International Convention for the unification of certain Rules relating to the Immunity of State-owned vessels was signed at Brussels on the 10th April, 1926, by the delegates of the following countries: Germany, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, France, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Holland, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and Sweden. Most of the delegates, including the British, signed subject to confirmation by their Governments. On examining the draft Convention it was found that it could not be adopted by His Majesty's Government as
it stands, and a draft supplementary protocol was prepared after discussions with representatives of the Belgian Government, embodying the amendments which would enable His Majesty's Government to adopt the Convention. This draft supplementary protocol has been circulated by the Belgian Government to the other Governments concerned for their consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FOREIGN CARPETS AND RUGS (MARKING).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings have been held by the Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act which is inquiring into the marking of foreign carpets and rugs; and when is the Report expected?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I under stand that the Standing Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act to which this application has been referred has not yet fixed a date for the inquiry.

Mr. DAY: Has there been any correspondence between the President and these people urging them to start these inquiries?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not had any correspondence with them at all.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any application in respect of tea?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question. The Act is so popular that I cannot carry in mind all the applications that come in.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

Mr. HARRIS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what methods are adopted to make known to the public and the various trade interests concerned that it is proposed to hold an inquiry under the Safeguarding of Industries Regulations; and how long notice is given so that those interested in supporting or opposing a proposed duty have time to prepare evidence?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: An announcement of the appointment of any committee under the Safeguarding procedure is made in the daily Press, in the appropriate trade papers, and in the
Board of Trade Journal," usually about three weeks before the commencement of the public hearing.

Mr. HARRIS: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability, in the interests of all parties concerned, of giving a longer notice, so that both the parties who desire safeguarding and the parties who are opposed may have ample opportunities to prepare their case, as throe weeks is too short?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I have seen no backwardness on the part of opponents in coming forward to present their case at great length.

Mr. HARRIS: Has it not been constantly alleged by opponents that three weeks is not long enough in which to get the necessary information and collect it, very often, from a very large area?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not heard that, and the obvious answer which disproves that is that on every occasion the opponents have produced every argument, relevant or irrelevant, against the applications.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, according to the very last Report that was published and dealt with in this House, it was proved in the evidence itself that the statements made by those who support safeguarding were inaccurate, but that time was not available during the hearing to get accurate statements?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not accept that, but it is not the point. The point, as I understand it, of putting the question is that the opponents should have longer notice.

Mr. HARRIS: No. Both sides.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Then I can answer most emphatically, on behalf of the applicants, that I have never had any complaint from any applicant of the shortness of notice.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it true that the Government are holding an inquiry into iron and steel, and have those trades been notified by the Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Then it is not true?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINING INDUSTRY ACT.

Mr. BATEY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to report to the House before the end of the present Session the results of the Mining Industry Act, 1926?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): The Mining In-dusty Act requires the presentation of a report, covering a period of two years from the passing of the Act, including not only such amalgamations and absorptions as have been carried through under the procedure laid down, but also all such other information and statistics relevant thereto as the Board of Trade may think fit. It will be desirable that the report should deal with the formation and progress of the District Schemes and any similar arrangements which may be in force. It would be possible to produce a report in strict conformity with the Act within a short time after 4th August. This would mean that the report would be published during the recess, and that a considerable time would elapse before Parliament met, with the result that the report would not contain the latest information available at the time at which the opportunity would arise for discussing it. It would, I think, be for the convenience of the House if a report were presented when Parliament reassembles, covering the two years ending on 4th August but including also any relevant information which may be available up to the date of the report.

RATING RELIEF.

Mr. FENBY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state, in the form already given for other industries, the proportions of rating relief to coal mining and to the rest of the mining industry which will go to firms making a large proportion of the profits and to firms making the remainder of the profits or actual losses; and whether he will likewise state what are the proportions of the profits concerned?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. FENBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the information will be available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid that I cannot give the information. I have consulted the Inland Revenue, and, while it is possible to give detailed information with regard to certain industries, it is not possible—we have not in any Department of the Government the information—to give these particulars for the coal industry.

Mr. FENBY: Do I understand that it is impossible to give the information for which I have asked?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, it is impossible for any Government Department to apportion as between firms on a basis of relative profits the amount of relief they will receive.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that between now and next Session, when the Government bring in their new Bill, you will be compelled to find out?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I think not. I think it will be obviously quite impossible to say, for every single firm, out of thousands of manufacturing firms, what actual relief they are going to get in relation to profits which they may make. As regards the general position, I have already given, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in answer to other questions, a figure which covers directly and indirectly the aggregate of relief which the coal industry will receive.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Secretary for Mines can week by week obtain the number of collieries which are making profits and those which are making losses, and would not they help the right, hon. Gentleman?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. They would not, because they would not enable us to find out exactly what rates are paid on each of the collieries in the country.

YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 29 and 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the aggregate wages that were paid to Yorkshire mine-workers for the quarter ended March, 1926, and for the half-year ended 30th June, 1928;
(2) how many man shifts were worked in the coal mines of Yorkshire in the quarters ending 31st March, 1926, 31st March, 1928 and 30th June, 1928, respectively?

Commodore KING: It is estimated that the total amount paid as wages in the coal mining industry of Yorkshire was approximately £6,800,000 in the quarter ended 31st March, 1926; £5,550,000 in the quarter ended 31st March, 1928, and £4,585,000 in the quarter ended 30th June, 1928; and that the total numbers of man shifts worked during these periods were 12,200,000, 11,000,000 and 9,100,000 respectively.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the figures which have just been given, which indicate that Yorkshire mineworkers alone are going to lose £5,000,000 in wages in one year, does the hon. and gallant Member expect that the miners are going to pass a vote of thanks to the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD COUNCIL.

Mr. BATEY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the date when the Food Council was appointed; the total cost up to the latest available date; and what have been the effects of its activities in reducing food prices?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Food Council was appointed in July, 1925, and its cost up to 30th June, 1928, has been £8,704. As regards the last part of the question, there has been a marked decline in food prices since the Food Council began their work; but, in the nature of the case, it is not possible to estimate how much of that reduction is attributable to their activities.

Mr. BATEY: Did not the Government in their manifesto before the General Election state that they would appoint——

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise.

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. I wanted to know what has been the reduction in food prices which the Government have promised.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman gave the hon. Member an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CLEARING OFFICE FOR ENEMY DEBTS.

Mr. KELLY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of men
and women who have been appointed to the Enemy Debt Department during this year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There has been a net decrease of 37 in the number of persons employed in the Clearing Office since the 1st January last. No women have been appointed to the office during this period, and the only men appointed have been seven "P" class Clerks redundant in other Departments whose transfer is in accordance with the general Civil Service arrangements for the continued employment of men in this class.

INCOME TAX COLLECTOR, WESTMINSTER.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 46.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what amount of the salary of £750 per annum paid to the late collector of Income Tax for the parish of St. Martin's West, Charing Cross, was disbursed by him as office rent and what amounts were expended in wages to the staff employed by him and for incidental expenses arising out of his duties?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The amount of this collector's actual expenditure is not known. Collectors of taxes are remunerated upon an inclusive basis, which leaves the collector full discretion, subject to maintaining efficiency, to determine what he will spend in clerical assistance and office expenses. Where the conditions of work impose on the collector a need for specially heavy expenses, the position is specially considered and the gross remuneration is adjusted accordingly.

Mr. YOUNG: Is it not time that some system was created to provide proper arrangements whereby these officials would know what exactly was the amount of their wages?

Mr. SAMUEL: The position is that the collector can either do all the work himself and keep the salary, or pay someone to do it, or part of it, for him, and, in that case, he has, of course, to pay away a part of the remuneration. On the other hand, he can also engage in other work provided that it does not conflict with his Income Tax duties.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MANŒUVRES (COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War what were the sums paid in compensation for damage committed during manœuvres during last year and the year before, respectively?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The amount paid as compensation in 1927 for damage during field training in the areas covered by the Orders-in-Council made under the Military Manœuvres Acts was approximately £4,000. In 1926 field training was confined to War Department lands.

TROOPS IN CHINA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made for the leave and/or relief of the troops sent to China in the Shanghai expeditionary force; and whether any arrangements have been made, or are in contemplation, to enable the wives and families of officers and of soldiers married on the strength to join their husbands in China?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It has already been arranged that units of the Shanghai Defence Force shall be relieved next trooping season: in the case of individuals of the staff and departmental branches whose longer retention may be necessary in the public interest, arrangements will be made for enabling their families to join them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is the greatest time that the units, apart from the special categories to which he refers, will have spent in China?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope that all the units of the Shanghai Defence Force will he relieved in the next trooping season.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How long does that mean that they will have spent in China, and does "relieved" mean that they will be brought home or be sent to India or some other station?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will answer in regard to any specific unit
about which the hon. and gallant Gentleman likes to ask me, but, broadly speaking, it means that they will be brought home. I will not say, of course, that some of them will not go to some other station.

GUN PRACTICE, KINGHORN AND INCHKEITH.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to complaints on the part of owners of property and householders at Kinghorn, Fifeshire, of the damage caused within the burgh by heavy gun-firing from the Kinghornness and Pettycur batteries; if he is aware that the amenities of the burgh as a summer holiday resort are being seriously affected by the heavy gunfire; that householders are compelled to keep their windows open in all sorts of weather in order to minimise the damage; that persons desirous of closing their houses during the holidays are prevented from doing so during the greater part of the summer; that the War Office refuse to admit any liability for the damage arising from the gunfire; and if he will consider the desirability in future of arranging for the carrying out of heavy gun practice at Inchkeith or elsewhere at a greater distance from inhabited houses?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will appreciate that firing from the various batteries at ranges is a military necessity, but everything possible is done to minimise the inconvenience to the public. In pursuance of this policy, I am having inquiry made whether the practice from the Kinghorn battery could properly be restricted to reduced charges, the practice with full charges being carried out from Inchkeith. No further firing from the 9.2 inch guns at Kinghorn will in fact be carried out this year, nor will there be further firing from the Pettycur battery. As regards claims for compensation for damage, I am unable to admit any liability unless there are abnormal circumstances or it can be shown that there has been negligence.

Mr. KENNEDY: What distinction does the right hon. Gentleman draw between compensation caused by the firing of guns from these batteries, and the compensation referred to in Question No. 9 with regard to manœuvres?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: One is a statutory compensation for which Army Funds are liable, and the other is a compensation for which the Army Funds are not liable, unless there has been negligence.

Mr. KELLY: At the same time that the right hon. Gentleman is considering the stoppage of the firing in this part of the country, will he take into consideration the firing that is giving trouble, expense, and loss at Clacton-on-Sea, Southend, and Woolwich?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Nobody likes heavy gun firing in their immediate neighbourhood, but we are most considerate in the matter and are always careful not to cause any inconvenience that can be avoided.

Mr. R. MORRISON: What useful purpose is served by firing 9-inch guns?

TROOPS IN GERMANY.

Mr. HARRIS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many British troops are now stationed in the Rhine area; and if any reductions in their numbers are contemplated?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The strength of the British Army of the Rhine, excluding the small detachment in the Saar district, was approximately 6,000 on the 1st July. No reductions are at present contemplated.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider it necessary to detain 6,000 troops in order to maintain order in this area?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I think that it is necessary to satisfy our treaty obligations.

Commander WILLIAMS: Under what Prime Minister was this Treaty first made, and what length of time was it for?

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Quai d'Orsay in order to get their permission for the withdrawal of these troops, seeing that they no longer serve any useful purpose?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I observe the hon. Member's opinion, but I do not share it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the maintenance of these troops in Germany is chargeable to the Exchequer of this country and therefore, in the interests of economy, cannot the number be reduced?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know that that question really arises from the answer. It is a very long and complicated question, the answer to which, with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's permission, I will defer.

FIELD MARSHALS AND GENERALS (HALF-PAY).

Mr. ROBINSON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War the names of the field marshals and general officers in receipt of half-pay for whom provision is made of £29,000 in the estimates for the current year; and the number that are above 60, 65, and 70 years of age, respectively?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of field marshals and general officers at present in receipt of half-pay. But the list is constantly changing according as the officers are re-employed or as the general officers retire on retired pay. Five of the officers are between 60 and 65 years of age, two between 65 and 70, and two over 70; the last four are field marshals.

Following is the list:

Field Marshals:

Connaught and Strathearn, H.R.H. The Duke of, K.G., K.T., K.P., etc., etc.
Methuen, The Lord, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O.
Allenby, The Viscount, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.
Robertson, Sir Wm. R., Bt., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., K.C.V.O., D.S.O.

Generals:

Godley, Sir Alexander J., G.C.B., K.C.M.G.
Chetwode, Sir Philip W., Bt., K.C.B., K.C.M.G., D.S.O.
Asser, Sir J. John, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., K.C.V.O.
Kirkpatrick, Sir George M., K.C.B., K.C.S.I.

Lieutenant-Generals:

Butler, Sir Richard H. K., K.C.B., K.C.M.G.
Uniacke, Sir Herbert C. C., K.C.B., K.C.M.G.
Radcliffe, Sir Percy P. de B., K.C.M.G., C.B., D.S.O.
Cory, Sir George N., K.B.E., C.B., D.S.O.

Major-Generals:

Harvey, R. N., C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O.
Ruthven, The Lord, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O.
Daly, A. C., C.B., C.M.G.
Farmar, G. J., C.B., C.M.G.
Ashmore, E. B., C.B., C.M.G., M.V.O.
Kirwan, B. R., C.B., C.M.G.
Peck, H. R., C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O.
Higginson, H. W., C.B., D.S.O.
Gibb, E., C.B., C.M.G., C.B.E., D.S.O.
Hollond, S. E., C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O.
Deedes, C. P., C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O.
Sandilands, J. W., C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O.
Maxwell-Scott, W. J., C.B., D.S.O.

COLONELS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War why the number of employed colonels is 338 as compared with 301 in 1914, in view of the reduction in the numbers of other ranks to-day as compared with 1914?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The numbers quoted include India and certain employments under the Foreign Office, Air Ministry, etc. The number in receipt of full pay as colonels from Army Funds is 266 as compared with 264 before the War. The additional numbers necessitated by having troops on the Rhine and at Shanghai, and by the increased requirements of schools and technical establishments, have been met by reductions elsewhere.

Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many of these colonels have taken the place of civilians?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise from this question.

TRAVELLING FACILITIES (RAILWAY FARES).

Mr. STEPHEN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now able to state whether it has been found possible to make an arrangement whereby some additional reduction in train fare can be
made in the case of young soldiers at long distances from their homes when on annual leave?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid that it would be impossible to discriminate between those individual soldiers who happen to be stationed far from their homes and those who are not, and any general extension of the existing facilities granted by the railway companies would involve an additional charge which I cannot accept against Army funds in the present state of the national finances.

Mr. STEPHEN: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that these lads are to be compelled to go on paying one-fifth of a year's salary in order to get a visit to their homes once a year?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think that it is as much as that, but they do get reduced fares, and that is as much as I can arrange for them.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reduced fare in the case of a lad from Glasgow amounts to 75s., which is more than one-fifth of his salary for the year, and if it is beyond the intelligence of the administration of the British Army to come to a mileage arrangement in this matter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Gentleman in calculating that percentage is ignoring everything except actual facts. He is omitting altogether the other advantages which the lad gets.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Ts the right hon. Gentleman aware that from further north a fair number of soldiers enlist, and their position is even worse, for it means that they get in fact no holidays at all? Cannot he reconsider the whole question of distance in this matter?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that according to his own figures last year, out of every 100 persons who enlisted, 71 were unemployed, and will he take into consideration the known poverty in their homes?

COLDSTREAM GUARDS BAND.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the Army Regulations provide that when the band of the Coldstream Guards is hired for public purposes the
full complement of 35 performers should be sent, he will investigate the circumstances under which the band of the Coldstream Guards recently appeared at Norwich with only nine performers; and whether he will take steps to prevent such a reduction of numbers in future?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The rule is that the band of a regiment must consist of at least 25 musicians if engaged for an outdoor performance and of at least 20 musicians for an indoor performance. But smaller combinations of musicians from the band are permitted to play provided that they are not described in such a way as to suggest that they represent the full regimental band. I understand that at Norwich, by an error for which the military authorities were not responsible, a description appeared in one advertisement which did not comply with this condition.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ARMY RESERVISTS AND DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (INSURANCE).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any steps have been taken to place soldiers, discharged or transferred to the Reserve, in the same relation to the Unemployment Insurance Acts as civilians; if so, will he say what arrangements have been made; and what categories of soldiers are covered by the arrangements?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In accordance with specific provision of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1927, a fixed sum is paid from Army Funds to the Ministry of Labour in respect of each soldier discharged or transferred to the Reserve, whereby he is enabled to enter civil life in the same position as if he were a fully insured civilian at the date of leaving the colours. This applies to all soldiers, as defined in Section 41 of the Act of 1920, who complete their engagements with the colours, but not to deserters or to men who are discharged or transferred to the Reserve at their own request before completing their engagements, or on grounds of fraudulent enlistment or other misconduct, nor does it apply to recruits not finally approved.

Mr. YOUNG: Is there any provision made at all for men who have been transferred at their own request?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I think not, because they have abandoned their employment.

BENEFIT (MINERS, GLAMORGANSHIRE).

Mr. G. HALL: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons classified as belonging to the coalmining industry, with current claims to benefit at the Employment Exchanges in Glamorganshire, to the latest available date, and for the period ended 31st December, 1927?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): At 25th June, 1928, the number of insured persons classified as belonging to the coal-mining industry who had current claims to benefit in Glamorganshire was 45,758, as compared with 53,052 at 19th December, 1927.

TRANSFERENCE OF WORKERS (MINERS).

Mr. LANSBURY: 69 and 70.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) which Exchanges in South-East London or any other part of the Metropolis notified the authorities in the mining areas from which 270 men were recently drawn; and if he will state the number of unemployed labourers, skilled or unskilled, on the registers of the Exchanges notifying the vacancies;
(2) whether he will place in the Library a copy of the instructions issued to Employment Exchanges respecting the placing of unemployed miners in vacancies which occur in London and other places; and in which districts of London there is any shortage of unskilled labour?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am sending the hon. Member a list of the Employment Exchanges referred to in the question in the areas of which these men were placed. The total number of labourers of all descriptions on the registers of these Exchanges on 25th June was about 26,000, but these belonged to a great variety of trades and the hon. Member will appreciate that a great many of them could not be regarded as in competition for the jobs here in question. In any case, the level of employment was much better than in the areas from
which the men were drawn. As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 5th July, the object of these arrangements is to give to unemployed men from the hard-pressed areas some share of the vacancies in the districts in which employment is relatively good. In order to place the matter in its right perspective, I would point out that during the four weeks in which employment was found for these 270 men, the Exchanges in the South-Eastern Division found labouring work for between 5,000 and 6,000 men altogether, and a great many others secured such employment without the intervention of the Exchanges. It is not the practice to publish the text of the instructions issued to officers of the Department. The substance of the instructions to which the hon. Member refers was given in the reply I gave to his question on 5th July.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that with the 26,000 men registered in these areas, and with 70,000 or 80,000 men registered in the districts all around, it is fair either to the men in London or in South Wales or elsewhere to bring them to an already overcrowded labour market, and is he not aware that the work of a painter's labourer is work that any labourer is capable of performing?

Mr. BETTERTON: As I have stated, many of these men were placed in occupations where they were not in competition with many of those who are out of work. To give an example, we placed a man as a hotel porter. It is not to be supposed that he was in competition with a labourer.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a man who registers as an unskilled labourer, or a labourer of any kind, is a man who is capable of performing the work of a painter's labourer, or of carrying sandwich boards?

Mr. JOHNSTON: If the hon. Gentleman finds it impossible to put all the instructions he has given on this matter in the Library, will he place in the Library, for the information of the House, a statement of the orders issued to Employment Exchanges to the effect that where a man gets a week' work, and gets priority, he is to be put upon the live
register of the new area to which he goes in order to show fictitious figures for the distressed areas?

Mr. BETTERTON: I do not at all admit that any of the figures I have given are fictitious. As I have said, it is not the practice of this or of any previous Government to place in the Library the text of instructions issued from the Department.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that, unless these authorities are in a position to create some new employment for the men transferred from Wales to another district, it is on all fours with digging a hole and filling it up again?

Mr. BETTERTON: As I said yesterday, there is no doubt at all that there are areas in this country where the state of employment is such that we are justified in giving some share of it to these men in distressed areas who are out of employment. To give an example, we brought 20 men from Blaina, in South Wales, to Brighton, the situation in Brighton being 3 per cent. of unemployment and the state in Blaina being no less than 62 per cent.

Mr. HALL: 71.
asked the Minister of Labour the Employment Exchanges in South Wales from which the 270 men were recently drawn for employment in London; will he give the nature of the employment offered; and the number placed in employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the Exchanges in South Wales from which these men were drawn and the principal occupations in which employment was found for them. The number placed in employment in the South-Eastern Division, including London, during the four weeks ended 30th June, was 270. Work was found for all the men brought up under the arrangements, and, according to my information, very few of them have failed to retain it up to the present.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the areas where these men were found employment in London, and does he intend to continue the practice of importing men from distressed areas to equally distressed areas in London?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has quite misunderstood the purport of my answer. We are not bringing men from areas that are distressed to others that are equally distressed. What we are doing is to bring men from areas which are distressed to places where employment is relatively good.

Following is the list:

List of Employment Exchanges in South Wales from which ex-miners have been transferred to work in the South-Eastern Division during four weeks ended 30th June, 1928.


Aberdare.
Mountain Ash.


Abertillery.
Neath.


Bargoed.
Ogmore Vale.


Blackwood.
Pontlottyn.


Blaenavon.
Pontnewydd.


Blaina.
Pontycymmer.


Brynmaur.
Pontypool.


Cardiff.
Pontypridd.


Caerphilly.
Porth.


Crumlin.
Port Talbot.


Cymmer.
Risca.


Dowlais.
Swansea.


Ebbw Vale.
Tonypandy.


Ferndale.
Tredegar.


Maesteg.
Treorchy.


Merthyr Tydfil.
Tonyrefail.

List of Occupations in which ex-miners have been found work.

Bakery Assistant.
Bricklayer.
Bricklayer's Labourer.
Builder's Labourer.
Carpenter.
Cleaner (Factory).
Coach Body Rubberdown.
Electrical Engineer.
Electrical Welder.
Engineer's Labourer.
Engineering Works Learner.
Fitter's Mate.
Foundry Labourer.
Gas Works Labourer.
Gravel Pit Labourer.
Hotel Porter.
Hotel Plateman.
Kitchen Porter Labourer.
Navvy.
Painter's Labourer.
Platelayer.
Porter.
Railway Carriage Cleaner.
Railway Porter.
Railway Shed Labourer.
2034
Shop Porter.
Silt Works Labourer.
Tunnellers.
Warehousemen.
Warehouse Porter.
Wireless Apparatus Learner.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SUBSIDY AND LOAN (MR. DONALD GILLIES).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Mr. Donald Gillies, 473, South Lochboisdale, who was promised a grant of £100 for a house to be completed by 23rd October, 1923, has been proceeded against in the Courts by the Board of Agriculture, because the house was not completed until 12 days later, on the 6th November; and, in view of the fact that the delay was caused by an error by the Board of Agriculture in consigning the necessary cement to the wrong island, will he inquire into the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The position is not as stated in the question. My right hon. Friend has already communicated to the hon. Member the facts of the case as reported by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. The Board's report showed that it has been necessary to institute proceedings against Mr. Gillies owing to his failure to pay annuities due in respect of a loan of £230 advanced to him. Mr. Gillies was informed by the Scottish Board of Health that he would be paid a subsidy for his house on conditions which he failed to implement; and the Board of Agriculture were in no way responsible for his failure to complete the erection of the house in time to qualify for this subsidy.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will the hon. and gallant Member make further inquiries into this case, because, if my information is right, his is quite wrong?

Major ELLIOT: The Secretary of State has already communicated his view of the matter in writing to the hon. Member, and, if the hon. Member has any wish to controvert any statements, he has merely to reply to that letter.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the statement correct that the delay simply amounted to 12 days?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot go into the matter at this point. The position is certainly not as stated in the question.

GLASGOW.

Mr. STEPHEN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of inhabited houses that have been condemned as unfit for human habitation in the Whitevale, Mile End and Dennistoun wards of Glasgow, and the number of houses to be built in each of those wards?

Major ELLIOT: I am informed that 64 houses have been condemned in the Whitevale ward and 443 in the Mile End ward, but none in the Dennistoun ward. 216 houses have been erected and 804 are contemplated in the Dennistoun ward, but no houses have been erected, or are contemplated, in the other two wards.

SCHEME, FILEY (DOORS).

Mr. LUMLEY: 63.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Filey urban district council, in advertising for tenders for 24 houses on the Scarborough Road allotments, have specified that all the doors must be of Swedish make and that British manufacturers have been refused permission even to quote for the doors; and whether he can take any action which will secure at least equal consideration for British work in housing schemes on which a subsidy is paid?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward) on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FISHING INDUSTRY (GREY SEALS).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken by the Fishery Board for Scotland to diminish the loss among salmon and sea trout owing to the large increase in the number of grey seals round the coasts.

Major ELLIOT: The Fishery Board for Scotland have been making investigations with a view to ascertaining how far the number of grey seals has increased,
and to what extent they are responsible for damage to salmon and sea trout. Until these investigations have been further pursued, the Board are not in a position to express a definite opinion whether any action is necessary.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the hon. and gallant Member urge the Fishery Board to make further inquiries as soon as possible, in view of the report on this subject?

Major ELLIOT: The Fishery Board have the matter under consideration at the present time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that English seals do not eat fish, according to the Minister of Agriculture, and will he see if he cannot bring about a transmigration?

Major ELLIOT: No doubt that is one of the matters which will be taken into consideration.

LAND SEIZURE (PROSECUTIONS, LOCHMADDY).

Mr. MACLEAN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland upon whose orders the warrant to imprison Neil Macdonald and Ewan Maclennan was issued.

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend has called for information on this point, and will communicate with the hon. Member when it is received.

Mr. MACLEAN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason why Neil Macdonald and Ewan Maclennan were kept in prison after the 7th June, 1928, when they intimated they intended to appeal to the Court of Session against their sentence.

Major ELLIOT: These men were sentenced on the 14th June, 1928, and were detained in prison after that date in virtue of an ex facie valid warrant for their imprisonment.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. and gallant Member kindly inform me whether their detention was illegal?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member asked me the reason why they were kept in prison and the reason was because a warrant was in existence in accordance with the orders to which I previously
referred. Whether these orders were valid is at present under judicial investigation.

Mr. MACLEAN: What I want to know is why they were kept in prison after their appeal and were not released until the matter was brought to the Court of Session.

Major ELLIOT: They were kept in prison because of the existence of the warrant and under the orders of the legal authorities, in accordance with the answer I have given.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that the Court of Session, in delivering judgment, said that there was a good deal to be said for the view of counsel that the men had been illegally kept in prison and will the hon. and gallant Member be good enough to answer a question properly and not ride off on a side issue.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been told that the matter is receiving consideration.

Mr. MACLEAN: But the hon. and gallant Member has not answered the question. It is the previous question which is receiving consideration, not this question. This question is a straight question, which can be answered definitely by the Minister because the facts are in the possession of the Scottish Office.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member has a question later dealing with the statement of the Court. I have dealt quite fully with the two questions which he has asked. It is not possible for me to give any more information.

Mr. MACLEAN: 28.
asked the Lord Advocate whether he has seen or received the statement of the Lord Justice Clerk that the appeal of Neil Macdonald and Ewan Maclennan against the sentence passed on them at Lochmaddy suspended the proceedings, and they should not have been imprisoned; and whether he can now state if any compensation will he offered these two men?

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend has seen a shorthand transcript of the Opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk, in which His Lordship is reported as saying:
The next question involved is whether these appellants ought to have been im-
prisoned after the marking of the appeal to this Court. My impression at the moment is that they should not have been imprisoned. The marking of the appeal to this Court ought to have been regarded as suspending the procedure ad interim. The only warrant for imprisonment was, so to speak, held up by the appeal which had been taken. That is a quite familiar concept, and I think there is much to be said for the view which Mr. Walker presented that these men were not being legally committed to the Prison of Inverness.
The hon. Member will therefore appreciate that the question whether there was any irregularity in the procedure in this case still remains for judicial decision. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on 3rd instant.

Mr. MACLEAN: Since the Under-Secretary has read out the decision of the Lord Justice Clerk, which was concurred in by the other two Lords of Appeal sitting with him—in fact, it amounted to a statement that these two men, according to the impression made upon the Lord Justice Clerk—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—ought not to have been imprisoned; after their appeal had been marked these men were kept in prison——

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought not to repeat the answer which has been given by the Under-Secretary.

Mr. SHORT: Can we have the opinion of the Solicitor-General for Scotland?

Mr. MACLEAN: I have been trying to get a statement from the Scottish Office——

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. SPEAKER: I want to waste as little time as possible.

Mr. MACLEAN: If hon. Members opposite had remained silent, there would not have been so much time wasted. Since the Lord Justice Clerk has given his impression that these men were illegally detained, I want to ask whether that in itself does not give these men the right to claim compensation for being imprisoned when the Court had no right to keep them in prison?

Major ELLIOT: I do not think that we can admit that for a moment. The Lord
Justice Clerk stated his impression at the time, and he said that there was much to be said for the contention advanced by counsel.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Quite apart from the use of the word "impression," the Court of Sessions definitely ordered the release of these men from prison.

Major ELLIOT: Of course that was so, but the question put to me was whether these men had been illegally imprisoned and whether compensation should be paid to them, and those are quite different questions.

LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.

Mr. STEPHEN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to introduce legislation on the lines of the Landlord and Tenant Act for Scotland?

Major ELLIOT: There is no possibility of legislation on this subject during the present Session, and I can at present make no statement as to the prospects of legislation.

Mr. STEPHEN: Cannot the hon. and gallant Member say whether there is going to be legislation during this Parliament; and is he aware that many of the shopkeepers in the industrial centres are under a great grievance in respect of their leases?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that it is not possible for Under-Secretaries to make promises about legislation.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, GORBALS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the serious overcrowding in certain schools in the Gorbals Division of Glasgow; and if he intends taking any action to remedy the position?

Major ELLIOT: In the Gorbals Parliamentary Division there is no overcrowding in any of the eight non-transferred schools. On the other hand, in the three transferred schools the total average attendance of 5,233 is in excess of the recognised accommodation by 215. Additional accommodation, which is now being provided and which should be available before the end of the year, will
remove the congestion in every case but one, and there the authority expect to get rid of it by means of reorganisation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. and gallant Member not consult with the education authority to see if they cannot build a new school, as the over-crowding is really serious?

Major ELLIOT: The Education Department has been in communication with the Glasgow Education Authority, and they hope that school accommodation will be provided in a temporary building at Braehead Street.

PALACERIGG LABOUR COLONY.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that it is the intention of the local authorities in Glasgow to refuse to sanction further support to the Glasgow Distress Committee and their work at Palacerigg Labour Colony; and if he intends to resume the financial aid given by the Government some years ago?

Major ELLIOT: I am aware that the Corporation of Glasgow have decided not to continue to make advances to the distress committee. As regards the second part of the question, it is not the intention of the Government to resume the financial aid previously given.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see some of the persons interested in this matter?

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend will be glad to receive any representations on the subject which the hon. Member brings.

POLICE QUARTERS, GLASGOW (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the grounds on which his Department has refused to sanction certain items for payments by the Glasgow Corporation, arising from the rebuilding of new quarters for the Glasgow police as being too extravagant; and if he will reconsider his decision?

Major ELLIOT: The grounds referred to were fully explained in a Scottish Office letter addressed to the town clerk on the 16th April last, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. I am informed that the whole matter was remitted on the 6th instant to a special
sub-committee for consideration and report. I shall give careful consideration to any revised proposals which may thereafter be submitted to me by the police authority.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Under-Secretary see that there is no extravagance in this matter, and make sure that no money is uselessly spent?

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend is reconsidering the matter for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN MINES, CORNWALL.

Mr. KELLY: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any tin mines in Cornwall have reopened for working during the last six months?

Commodore KING: Yes, Sir, two; the Wheal Vincent and Pride of the East.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BY-PASS ROADS.

Mr. DAY: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of by-pass roads within an area of 20 miles of London that are still in the course of completion; and when these various roads will be available for traffic?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The greater portions of the Orpington, Sutton, Watford and Barnet by-passes have been open to traffic for some time. I expect that the short sections remaining to be completed on the Barnet and Sutton by-passes will be open in the early autumn of this year, and the remaining sections of the Watford and Orpington by-passes in the summer of next year. A length of the Shooters Hill by-pass has recently been opened to traffic, and I understand that the local authorities concerned proposed to put the remaining sections in hand in the near future. No date can at present be given for its completion. Important sections of the North Circular Road are already completed, but it is unlikely that the western portion will be finished before the end of 1930. The section of the Western Avenue from Wood Lane to Greenford Road will be completed in the summer of next year. No date can be given for the completion of the scheme as a whole.

Mr. DAY: Can the Minister give any date for the completion of the Sutton bypass road?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the Under-Secretary have a map prepared showing all these new by-pass roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think there is a map of these roads placed in the Tea Room for the information of hon. Members, and when next the hon. Member takes a cup of tea there he will see it.

Mr. DAY: May I have an answer to my question?

PRIVATELY-OWNED RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK.

Commander BELLAIRS: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in reducing the number of privately-owned rolling stock on the railways as distinct from railway-owned stock?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave him on the 5th March last. The census of privately-owned wagons, to which I then referred, is not yet complete, and I am, therefore, not in a position to say whether the number of such wagons has been reduced.

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.

Mr. HARRIS: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether a conference has been arranged or is contemplated between his Department, the London County Council, and the Southern Railway on the question of Charing Cross Bridge; and whether, in view of the urgency of the question, as the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge is dependent on the decision arrived at on the Charing Cross scheme, he will arrange for such a conference as soon as possible?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am personally in close touch with representatives of the London County Council and the Southern Railway Company and a conference has already been arranged to take place on Thursday next.

MOTOR ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE).

The following question stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. HORE-BELISHA:
37. To ask the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the heavy and increasing burden imposed upon voluntary hospitals in
the treatment and maintenance of motor accident cases, he will consider introducing a Bill rendering insurance compulsory upon all motor drivers and the cost of treatment and maintenance of motor accident cases admitted to voluntary hospitals being made a first charge upon the insurance money.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform you that this question has been entirely altered at the Table from the question which I handed in. I asked whether attention had been called to a resolution passed by the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, and I did not ask what is stated in the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member had better put down his question again.

MOTOR SPIRIT (CONSUMPTION).

Mr. FENBY: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state what proportion of imports of motor spirit are consumed by private cars and by commercial vehicles, respectively?

Colonel ASHLEY: I regret that no returns are available distinguishing the use to which imported motor spirit is put.

Mr. FENBY: Will the information be available in the Department?

Colonel ASHLEY: I said that no returns are available, and therefore the information is not likely to be available.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have information as to the relative amount consumed by private cars and commercial vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: That was purely an estimate, and it is not the same thing as a return.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICES.

Mr. DAY: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to state the results of the cash-on-delivery registered letter service which was introduced on Monday the 20th April; and has he received any reports from the Railway Clearing House on the figures of consignments of goods despatched by rail under this system?

Mr. AMMON: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of cash-on-delivery transactions each month in connection with the railways since the inception of the extended scheme; the total number of all cash-on-delivery transactions during the same period; and what methods of publicity are being pursued to bring the service to the notice of the trading community and the public generally?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The Railway Clearing House state that the number of cash-on-delivery consignments sent by rail during May was 2,211. The total number of cash-on-delivery packets and parcels posted during the four weeks ended the 2nd of June was 147,961. Exact figures for June are not yet available, but it is estimated that cash-on-delivery registered letter packets are at present being posted at the rate of about 1,000 a week. As regards the methods which are being pursued to advertise the new services, I would refer the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) to an answer given to a question on the same subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle on the 25th of June.

Mr. DAY: Is the Postmaster-General satisfied that everything is being done to let the public know exactly the advantages of this service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes; I think the railway companies are co-operating in every way that they can.

PURCHASE OF PREMISES, TREHARRIS.

Mr. G. HALL: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his Department has purchased the old police station premises at Treharris for post office purposes; and, if so, will he give the reason for the purchase, seeing that the present post office is both central and convenient?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The purchase to which the hon. Member refers is proceeding. The present office is inadequate to the needs of the public and of the staff, and incapable of satisfactory enlargement.

TELEPHONE FACILITIES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General how many rural telephone exchanges exist in Scotland; and how many of them have been installed during the last 12 months?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: 465 at the 30th June last, including 28 installed during the previous 12 months.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General at how many railway stations in Scotland telephone facilities have been provided; and in how many such facilities are in course of provision or under consideration?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: 444. At 10 more stations telephone facilities are in course of provision or under consideration.

POSTAL TRAIN (ABERDEEN).

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 47.
asked the Postmaster-General on how many occasions the 8.30 postal train was more than 15 minutes late at Perth and Aberdeen, respectively, during the months of May and June, 1928; and on how many of these occasions it missed the connection at Aberdeen?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: During the period in question the lateness of the train at Perth and Aberdeen on week-days exceeded 15 minutes on 11 and nine occasions, respectively; the mails failed to connect at Aberdeen with the Keith-Elgin and Deeside trains on five occasions, and with the Buchan train on two occasions.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Are any monetary penalties imposed on the railway companies if these occasions become too frequent?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should require notice of that question.

UNITED STATES SHIPPING LINE (MAIL CONTRACTS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 48.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the United States Shipping Line has any contracts for carrying mails or any other arrangement with the Government?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer is in the negative.

TRINITY HOUSE WORK.

Mr. KELLY: 49.
asked the Postmaster-General the amounts paid by Trinity House for work done by the Post Office staff in 1925, 1926, and 1927?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I assume that what the hon. Member alludes to is payment made by Trinity House for special work done by the Post Office in connection with the maintenance of telephone communications with outlying lighthouses and light vessels. The charge for these services for the three years was:


1925
…
…
£2,165


1926
…
…
£554


1927 (estimated)
…
…
£37


These sums do not include any charges covered by the ordinary telephone rentals or call fees, or telegraph, postal charges and the like, particulars of which are not available.

INDIVIDUAL OFFICES (STATISTICS).

Sir W. de FRECE: 50.
asked the Postmaster-General if his Department compiles statistics showing the profit or loss on individual post offices; and, if not, will he consider the desirability of compiling such statistics?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A post office is not a self-contained trading unit, but a unit in a complex communication system; and the cash receipts at any office bear no relation to the volume of work of various kinds which it handles. Individual profit and loss accounts are, therefore, not practicable. Statistics are, however, kept of the volume of business handled in relation to the staff employed in handling it, and there are used for purposes of control.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEBT REDUCTION FUND.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sum now contributed to the National Debt Reduction Fund, inclusive of the amount recently donated by Lord Inch-cape?

Mr. SAMUEL: Additional contributions to the original £500,000 National Fund for reduction of the National Debt which was announced in the Press on 7th February last have been received to the amount of £795. The Elsie Mackay Fund of £500,000 for reduction of the National Debt, which was announced by my right hon. Friend on the 3rd July,
will be separately constituted. Apart from these special accumulating funds, the total gifts from individuals received from the outbreak of war to the present date amount to £1,109,337, of which £625,960 was received in the form of securities, and the balance in cash.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Has my hon. Friend's attention been called to the statement in the Press that certain obligations have been undertaken on behalf of the estate in question, and, if so, is he prepared to justify the acceptance of the full sum until those obligations have been fulfilled?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have not seen the statement to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Without making any reflection whatever on Lord Inchape, may I ask whether the Treasury alone have authority to accept or reject such a gift?

Mr. W. THORNE: Do donations given in this way escape Death Duties?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think that the hon. Members had better put those questions down.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is it not the fact that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced this gift in the House, he said that Death Duties had already been deducted?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 52.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he has any information as to how many ex-service men once pensioned for neurasthenia due to war service have in 1927–28 been refused treatment for an extended form of this malady, and in consequence have had to go into a mental institution?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): It is not the practice of the Ministry to refuse any necessary course of treatment to a pensioner suffering from any form of neurasthenia which is found to be the outcome of Great War service.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RECIPIENTS, GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND (REPATRIATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether negotiations have been in progress with the Government of Northern Ireland regarding the mutual repatriation of persons in receipt of poor relief?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): No, Sir, my right hon. Friend is not aware that any legal difficulty has arisen as regards Northern Ireland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then why is it necessary to have negotiations of this character with the Government of Southern Ireland?

Sir V. HENDERSON: Because the Government of Ireland Act altered the law so far as the Irish Free State was concerned, but it did not alter the law so far as Northern Ireland was concerned.

CASUALS.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to investigate the practice by which casuals in many casual wards have to await the arrival of the medical officer standing in unheated cells whilst stripped of all clothing?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has received no complaints on this subject, but, if the hon. Member can supply him with particulars of the cases referred to, he will cause inquiry to be made.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will make inquiry as to the occupation of casuals detained in casual wards on Sundays?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has instructed his officers to give particular attention to this matter.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in most casual wards there is nothing whatever for the men to do all day long—that they are locked up in small rooms, and that no provision is made for reading or any occupation whatever; and will he take care that instructions are given that these men are to be suitably occupied on Sundays?

Sir K. WOOD: My Department have this matter in mind, and, as I have already stated, the officers of the Department have been instructed to give particular attention to it.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the fact that the method most commonly used for the disinfection of the clothing of casuals rapidly destroys the material, he will issue regulations to boards of guardians whereby disinfection will not destroy such clothing?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is advised that articles of clothing can be repeatedly disinfected without being damaged, though after a time the process may tend to deteriorate the clothing. He is afraid no regulations which he can issue will alter the position in this regard.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a system of disinfection whereby no harm is done, and, in view of the very scanty clothing most of these people have, will he see that some system is adpted whereby injury will not be done?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me any information that he has.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 62.
asked the Minister of Health how many boards of guardians have forwarded to him resolutions in favour of making the cost of the inspection of casuals for small-pox a national charge; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is 36. With regard to the second part, I would refer him to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich on the 5th instant, a copy of which I am forwarding to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAIFA HARBOUR SCHEME.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position of the Haifa harbour scheme; whether this work will be, as originally arranged, carried out, all or in part, by the Government or by contract; and when work on the harbour may be expected to commence?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply to this question. It has been decided that the harbour shall be constructed by contract. My right hon. Friend understands that the particulars drawn up by the consulting engineers to enable tenders to be invited are now available. It is hoped that it will be possible for tenders to be submitted by the end of September.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW ZEALAND AND JAPAN (COMMERCIAL RELATIONS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information as to the provisions of the proposed treaty between New Zealand and Japan?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to answer this question. His Majesty's Government in New Zealand have kept His Majesty's Government in Great Britain informed of negotiations which have for some time been in progress with a view to an exchange of notes regulating the commercial relations between New Zealand and Japan. I understand that the proposed agreement would deal with the treatment to be accorded by each of the two countries to the other in matters of commerce, customs and navigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OIL FUEL RESEARCH.

Commander BELLAIRS: 57.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much money was, approximately, spent by the Admiralty on experiments on oil fuel research prior to the introduction of oil-burning ships into the Navy?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The cost of this experimental work was spread over so many Navy Votes that I am afraid it would not be possible to give a reasonable estimate without a detailed investigation of the records covering many years. This would entail an expenditure of time and money which, I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree, would not be justified.

Commander BELLAIRS: Should I be right in assuming that very large sums
have been spent on the introduction of oil fuel, and that not one penny is being spent on re-establishing the use of coal?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: We are always anxious to do all that we can to help the coal industry, but we are satisfied at present that we are perfectly well suited with oil.

Mr. PALING: In view of the proved success of pulverised coal, and the fact that the coal industry is languishing, is it not the duty of the Admiralty to explore every avenue in this direction?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have already answered a good many questions on that subject. The Admiralty are not in possession of large sums of money with which they could do this experimental work when they are already satisfied with what they have.

Mr. PALING: Would it cost a very large sum of money to convert one particular ship from oil to pulverised coal in order to experiment?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have said that we are perfectly willing to provide such a ship for those who are making these experiments.

FLEET AIR ARM (OFFICERS' RANK).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 58.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all naval officers lent to the Air Ministry for the Fleet air arm retain their naval

ASSESSABLE VALUES.


I.—Administrative Counties.


Name of Administrative County.
Assessable value for the purposes of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, according to the Valuation Lists in force in April, 1927.







Urban Areas.
Rural Districts.
Total.


1.
2.
3.
4.


England (excluding Monmouthshire).
£
£
£


Bedford
…
…
…
…
690,220
401,414
1,091,634


Berks
…
…
…
…
378,529
943,349
1,321,878


Bucks
…
…
…
…
557,537
876,172
1,433,709


Cambridge
…
…
…
…
432,207
320,314
752,521


Chester
…
…
…
…
2,596,298
1,463,567
4,059,865


Cornwall
…
…
…
…
599,183
695,158
1,294,341


Isles of Scilly
…
…
…
…
—
2,859
2,859


Cumberland
…
…
…
…
504,049
552,654
1,056,703


Derby
…
…
…
…
1,340,579
1,469,446
2,810,025


Devon
…
…
…
…
1,210,844
1,221,590
2,432,434

rank; whether on appointment the Air Ministry gives them rank as Air Force officers; and whether, in cases where such officers are junior to regular Air Force officers but senior to them as naval officers, they claim seniority when questions of precedence arise?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Naval officers attached to the Royal Air Force for service with the Fleet air arm retain their naval rank, but are given temporary Royal Air Force commissions in addition. Such commissions do not in any way affect their naval status or authority, and if their naval rank is relatively higher than their Air Force rank, they take precedence, but not command, among Air Force officers in accordance with their naval rank.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSESSABLE VALUES.

Mr. FENBY: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state, for each administrative county, the estimated assessable value, at April, 1927, of urban areas, rural districts, and the county as a whole, and for county boroughs the assessable value of the county borough as a whole?

Sir K. WOOD: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Name of Administrative County.
Assessable value for the purposes of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, according to the Valuation Lists in force in April, 1927.





Urban Areas.
Rural Districts.
Total.


1.
2.
3.
4.



£
£
£


Dorset
…
…
725,437
573,788
1,299,225


Durham
…
…
2,139,040
1,863,694
4,002,734


Ely, Isle of
…
…
181,147
140,255
321,402


Essex
…
…
3,838,250
1,417,951
5,256,201


Gloucester
…
…
613,483
1,048,017
1,661,500


Hereford
…
…
225,113
408,024
633,137


Hertford
…
…
1,685,153
767,134
2,452,287


Huntingdon
…
…
145,563
184,487
330,053


Kent
…
…
5,204,573
2,005,248
7,209,821


Lancaster
…
…
9,094,570
1,964,654
11,059,224


Leicester
…
…
516,035
803,266
1,319,301


Lincoln, Parts of Holland
…
…
143,301
165,597
308,898


Lincoln, Parts of Kesteven
…
…
207,218
336,998
544,216


Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey
…
…
565,865
614,735
1,180,600


London
…
…
56,987,174
—
56,987,174


Middlesex
…
…
9,308,377
590,509
9,898,886


Norfolk
…
…
288,169
1,075,939
1,364,108


Northampton
…
…
427,625
647,103
1,074,728


Northumberland
…
…
1,469,273
722,695
2,191,968


Nottingham
…
…
1,104,589
809,510
1,914,099


Oxford
…
…
197,689
484,058
681,747


Peterborough, Soke of
…
…
217,403
77,481
294,884


Rutland
…
…
19,188
107,779
126,967


Salop
…
…
562,583
757,984
1,320,567


Somerset
…
…
894,769
1,280,513
2,175,282


Southampton
…
…
1,204,047
1,425,458
2,629,505


Stafford
…
…
1,911,671
1,055,737
2,967,408


Suffolk, East
…
…
436,866
480,737
917,603


Suffolk, West
…
…
195,585
242,490
438,075


Surrey
…
…
5,503,516
1,484,645
6,988,161


Sussex, East
…
…
1,185,230
963,139
2,148,369


Sussex, West
…
…
654,069
632,859
1,286,928


Warwick
…
…
922,217
1,074,722
1,996,939


Westmorland
…
…
202,934
275,682
478,616


Wight, Isle of
…
…
368,255
170,676
538,931


Wilts
…
…
748,051
835,146
1,583,197


Worcester
…
…
862,771
559,508
1,422,279


York, East Biding
…
…
414,778
641,057
1,055,835


York, North Riding
…
…
995,945
895,150
1,891,095


York West Riding
…
…
5,979,903
2,579,021
8,558,924


Wales (with Monmouthshire).





Anglesey
…
…
53,846
98,845
152,691


Brecon
…
…
66,236
209,611
275,847


Caernarvon
…
…
358,709
216,357
575,066


Cardigan
…
…
79,665
111,112
190,777


Carmarthen
…
…
274,499
321,491
595,990


Denbigh
…
…
334,692
381,995
716,687


Flint
…
…
230,200
285,024
515,224


Glamorgan
…
…
2,272,396
943,926
3,216,322


Merioneth
…
…
85,648
94,362
180,010


Monmouth
…
…
1,232,601
317,472
1,550,073


Montgomery
…
…
86,060
173,592
259,652


Pembroke
…
…
135,290
152,507
287,797


Radnor
…
…
44,216
135,194
179,410


Totals for Administrative Counties—England and Wales.
131,910,932
43,551,457
175,462,389




II.—County Boroughs.


Name of County Borough.

Assessable Value according to Valuation Lists in force in April, 1927.


England (excluding Monmouthshire).

£


Barnsley
…
276,860


Barrow-in-Furness
…
428,636


Bath
…
443,401


Birkenhead
…
928,621


Birmingham
…
5,925,783


Blackburn
…
756,795


Blackpool
…
1,098,784


Bolton
…
1,167,309


Bootle
…
637,815


Bournemouth
…
1,047,535


Bradford
…
2,524,501


Brighton
…
1,010,473


Bristol
…
2,192,395


Burnley
…
632,450


Burton-upon-Trent
…
300,476


Bury
…
374,932


Canterbury
…
141,153


Carlisle
…
335,095


Chester
…
253,761


Coventry
…
627,760


Croydon
…
1,542,152


Darlington
…
477,380


Derby
…
786,199


Dewsbury
…
307,753


Doncaster
…
415,462


Dudley
…
223,685


Eastbourne
…
576,963


East Ham
…
642,979


Exeter
…
456,213


Gateshead
…
482,903


Gloucester
…
335,209


Great Yarmouth
…
293,518


Grimsby
…
373,313


Halifax
…
662,515


Hastings
…
550,068


Huddersfield
…
869,520


Ipswich
…
477,348


Kingston-upon-Hull
…
1,789,835


Leeds
…
3,127,726


Leicester
…
1,474,083


Lincoln
…
332,851


Liverpool
…
7,089,814


Manchester
…
6,911,175


Middlesbrough
…
654,437


Newcastle-upon-Tyne
…
2,383,422


Northampton
…
476,973


Norwich
…
640,048


Nottingham
…
1,663,311


Oldham
…
830,027


Oxford
…
497,532


Plymouth
…
1,179,284


Portsmouth
…
1,283,990


Preston
…
631,291


Reading
…
567,574


Rochdale
…
609,943


Rotherham
…
360,794


St. Helens
…
442,330


Salford
…
1,399,062


Sheffield
…
2,549,656

Name of County Borough.

Asses-able Value according to Valuation Lists in force in April, 1927.




£


Smethwick
…
347,522


Southampton
…
1,073,495


Southend-on-Sea
…
945,305


Southport
…
755,775


South Shields
…
615,378


Stockport
…
797,096


Stoke-on-Trent
…
1,125,104


Sunderland
…
758,680


Tynemouth
…
328,887


Wakefield
…
346,275


Wallasey
…
712,254


Walsall
…
381,614


Warrington
…
424,635


West Bromwich
…
297,749


West Ham
…
1,419,933


West Hartlepool
…
300,401


Wigan
…
406,751


Wolverhampton
…
736,082


Worcester
…
284,239


York
…
458,942


Wales (with Monmouthshire).




Cardiff
…
1,649,666


Merthyr Tydfil
…
252,951


Newport
…
639,320


Swansea
…
885,976


Totals for County Boroughs—England and Wales.

83,416,903

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS (PENSIONS).

Colonel ENGLAND: 64.
asked the Minister of Health how many blind people are now actually in receipt of a pension under the Blind Persons Act; and whether he has any statistics to show the number of these pensioners who, despite the assistance, are none the less compelled to have recourse to the Poor Law?

Sir K. WOOD: On 31st March last 16,264 blind persons in England and Wales were in receipt of old age pensions under the Blind Persons Act. I have no statistics enabling me to answer the second part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INFANT MORTALITY, HAYDOCK.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the annual report of the medical officer of health for Haydock, Lancashire, which shows that, while the death rate
was slightly below the average for England and Wales, the infantile death rate was 44 per 1,000 higher; whether he can state what has caused this abnormal infantile mortality; and, if not, will he make inquiries with a view to sanitary and housing improvements beng effected in the interests of public health?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second in the negative. As regards the third part, my right hon. Friend proposes to arrange for a local investigation of all the circumstances.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the Prime Minister for what purpose he is proposing to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night, and, in the event of the

Agricultural Credits Bill being got through by Eleven o'clock, does he intend to take any other business, and, if so, what? Does he intend to take the two Motions about the American mail contract?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, we do not intend to take those. We hope to get the Agricultural Credits Bill, the Petroleum (Amendment) Bill, the Naval Prize (Transfer of Fund) and Educational Endowments (Scotland) [Expenses].

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 119.

Division No. 270.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hanbury, C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Albery, Irving James
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Harrison, G. J. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hartington. Marquess of


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Haslam, Henry C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Coupar, J. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Balniel, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hilton, Cecil


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bethel, A.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Holt, Captain H. P.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Drewe, C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Eden, Captain Anthony
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard-Bury, colonel C. K.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Brass, Captain W.
Ellis, R. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Briggs, J. Harold
England, Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fermoy, Lord
Jephcott, A. R.


Buchan, John
Fielden, E. B.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Buckingham, Sir H.
Forrest, W.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Bullock, Captain M.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Frece, Sir Walter de
Knox, Sir Alfred


Burman, J. B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lamb, J. Q.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gates, Percy
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Campbell, E. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Carver, Major W. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Cassels, J. D.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Long, Major Eric


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Looker, Herbert William


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lougher, Lewis


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Lumley, L. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacIntyre, Ian


Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Christie, J. A.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Malone, Major P. B.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hamilton, Sir George
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Meller, R. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waddington, R.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandon, Lord
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sassoon Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Savery, S. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Watts, Sir Thomas


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Skelton, A. N.
Wells, S. R.


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Oakley, T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Penny, Frederick George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Withers, John James


Preston, William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Womersley, W. J.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Storry-Deans, R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Radford, E. A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Raine, Sir Walter
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ramsden, E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Templeton, W. P.



Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Major Sir William Cope and


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
 Captain Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Snail, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Strauss, E. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edge, Sir William
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M-
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.

BILLS REPORTED.

RUBBER INDUSTRY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

POOLE CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Major Sir Richard Barnett to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the British Legion Poppies Bill); Mr. Short of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Dog Racing Bill); Sir Robert Sanders of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Public Rights of Way Bill) and Sir Cyril Cobb (in respect of the Merchant Shipping (Line-Throwing Appliance) Bill; and Mr. James Brown of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill) [Lords]).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Culverwell; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Dog Racing Bill): Colonel Applin, Mr. Brocklebank, Mr. Buchan, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Compton, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Dunnico, Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, Sir Robert Hamilton, Lieut.-Colonel Sir
Vivian Henderson, Mr. Robert Hudson, Sir George Hume, Viscount Sandon, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Wellock.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Harmsworth and Lieut.-Colonel Winby; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Alfred Hopkinson and the Solicitor-General.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Star ding Committee C (in respect of the Public Rights of Way Bill): the Attorney-General, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Campbell, Sir Henry Cowan, the Earl of Dalkeith, Sir Gerald Hohler, Sir Harry Hope, Mr. Hurd, Mr. John, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Shepherd, Major Steel, Mr. Trevelyan and Colonel Vaughan-Morgan.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill [Lords]: the Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Sir Henry Cowan, Mr. Evan Davies, Captain Garro-Jones, Mr. Mackinder, Mr. Russell, Major Steel, Mr. Viant and Commander Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Solicitors Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Worthing Extension) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BRITISH LEGION POPPIES BILL.

Order [22nd May] for committal to a Standing Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the new Clauses which appear on the Paper, the first one standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage)—(Loans for the purpose of promoting pig, calf, and foal clubs)—does not seem to be necessary as a new Clause. The hon. and gallant Member may move it as an Amendment to the Bill later on. As to the next Clause on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) and other hon. Members, I should like to hear what the hon. Member has to say about it. I can then judge whether he should move it or not.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Acquisition for public purposes of land on which a loan has been made.)

Where by or under any statute (whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) land which has been acquired by means of a loan made under the provisions of this Act is authorised to be acquired compulsorily by any Government Department or any local or public authority, in assessing the compensation to be paid deduction shall be made in respect of any enhanced value of the land as a result of such loan.—[Mr. Riley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
4.0 p.m.
The proposal of this new Clause is to provide that any enhanced value which comes to land as a result of the benefits of this Bill shall, in the event of the State or a local authority compulsorily acquiring such land, be deducted from the amount of compensation. As far as I can see, there is no provision whatever in this Bill to protect the State in respect of the advance of credit which will be given to the proposed Corporation to carry on the work of advancing credit. The Bill provides that a sum of £750,000 may be advanced in the course of three years, at a rate of £250,000 per annum, free of interest for a period of 60 years. I have made some calculations, and I find that this £750,000, which is to be advanced by
the State free of interest, would, if deposited at interest, bring in £37,500 per annum, and, at simple interest for 60 years, would amout to £2,250,000. So that this part of the Bill provides that, in the course of 60 years, at simple interest, there is to be a free gift of £2,250,000 to assist this corporation in affording credit and assistance to owners of land or to farmers for improvements. This applies to the first part of the Bill only, but I want to go a step further and remind the House that this £2,250,000, for which the State is going to be responsible, does not by any means represent all the advantage which the State is going to give this corporation, because, as a matter of fact, this £750,000 loaned free of interest for 60 years is equivalent, at compound interest for that period, to no less than £12,000,000. Therefore, this part of the Bill, under which this £750,000 is going to be loaned free of interest, represents an assistance in 60 years of £12,000,000 alone. Furthermore, it is interesting to bear in mind that, even at the end of the 60 years, there is nothing in the Bill to provide that this £750,000 will be repaid. All that the Bill says is, that at that time it will remain in the corporation at such interest as may be decided upon. In addition to that, there is a definite gift in this Bill of £10,000 per annum for a period of 10 years, making £100,000 altogether. There is a further definite gift of no less than £62,500 for underwriting. So that there are substantial gifts to be advanced by the State for this corporation.
I am submitting that it is surely the duty of this House, as the custodian of national revenue and of the national purse, to take every reasonable step that can be taken, if it advances money which is going to give some substantial advantage to a particular class, to see that the community reaps such advantages as are due to the credit given by Parliament. In this Bill, as I say, there is no provision whatever for that. As to the effects of the credit advanced by the State and the loan of this money, there can be no two opinions. First of all, the corporation is to be a private corporation with the advantage of the security and the stability of this Government advance of £750,000, plus the £100,000; and, over and above that, the Government are taking £1,250,000 of £5,000,000 of debenture
stock, so that there is something like £2,250,000 of Government money which will be at the service of this corporation for a definite period. I submit, in these circumstances, that it is only a matter of common prudence and simple duty that this House should take steps to see that whatever special advantages and values result from this expenditure, and, I might say, subsidy of public money, should be recompensed by some advantage to the State. Therefore, my proposed Clause says:
Where by or under any statute whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) land which has been acquired by means of a loan made under the provisions of this Act is authorised to be acquired compulsorily by any Government Department or any local or public authority, in assessing the compensation to be paid deduction shall be made in respect of any enhanced value of the land as a result of such loan.
The intention of the Bill, of course, is to encourage the owners and the occupiers of agricultural land to carry out substantial improvements. That is the very purpose of the Bill—to afford credit, in the first part of the Bill, very largely, I know, to release existing mortgages and to enter into new mortgages. With that part I am in agreement, but, personally, I regret there are any facilities to purchase agricultural land. Apart from that, it was also intended that farmers and owners should be encouraged, as the Title of the Bill sets forth, to secure money on favourable terms.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Clause at all; he is going over the whole case.

Mr. RILEY: I am pointing out that an advantage is going to accrue as a result of the advance of this public money to the owners and occupiers of agricultural land, and, in proof of that, I desire to call the attention of the House to the Title of the Bill, which says that the object is
to secure, by means of the formation of a company and the assistance thereof out of public funds, the making of loans for agricultural purposes on favourable terms, and to facilitate the borrowing of money on the security of farming stock and other agricultural assets.
My point is that, as a result of this Bill, there is bound to be an extension of credit resulting in improvements taking place, and one can visualise without difficulty that when this Bill has been in
operation for a few years, and owners and occupiers have had substantial advantage backed by the security of the State, a local authority may find the need to acquire for public purposes land which has been improved by the assistance of this subsidy. Is it equitable that when the value of such land is to be taken into account the improved value to which the subsidy of the State has contributed should not be taken into account? All that my Amendment is asking is that, whenever there is to be acquired land for the State or for a local authority, there should be deducted from the ascertained value such value as has accrued as the result of the contribution set forth in the Bill.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Motion.
One would hope that the House would see the necessity for protecting the interests of the community in this way. There can be little question, if any question at all, as to this Bill enhancing the price of land, particularly in the agricultural areas. That enhanced price will come, not so much, or not at all, from any effort on the part of the landlord or the landowner, but from the fact that the general community, through their credit behind this scheme, has enabled that enhanced price to be brought about. I submit that if, through the strength of the credit of the general community, we have tended to bring about that greater price, and if we acquire that land at some time in the future for public purposes, we certainly have no right to pay a higher price to someone else when we ourselves are responsible for any increased value, if increased value there be in that particular land. In the interests of the people, we must see that they do not have to pay in the first instance, and pay again in the last instance, as is possible in the absence of any protection in this Bill.
It does not require any great research to prove to Members of this House how the community has been bled whenever it wanted to secure for public purposes pieces of land in many parts of the country. The landlord, without any effort on his part at all, has seen the public demand for a particular stretch of country, and he has taken full advantage—advantage which, I am afraid, is not justified in many cases, if justified in any, to bleed the community for an enormous
price for something the value of which, at any rate, he certainly did nothing to create; and we say that, if we are going to help agriculture—and we are willing to help agriculture, though, as far as this part of the House is concerned, we would prefer to do it in a better way than this Measure is proposing—at the same time, if we are going to help agriculture, and through that enhance the price of this land whenever we require it for pubic purposes, we are not going to be bled again.
We are making grants, as my hon. Friend pointed out in moving the Second Reading of this Clause. We are not only putting our credit behind this company, which will be formed by the banks instead of by the Government or the State itself undertaking the work, but in addition we are making a handsome gift for the purpose of paying the cost of administration. Surely that is more than we ought to do. But, having done that much, we ought not in future to be called upon, because we have granted this credit, to pay many hundreds of thousands of pounds more because we require some land that we have enabled other people to get into their possession through this scheme. I hope that the House, no matter what its opinion may be with regard to the present method of land ownership, is not going to allow the community to be bled in future as it is being bled now and has been bled in the past, but that the House will support us in this new Clause so that the enhanced price shall not come out of the pockets of the community a second time.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The proposal of the new Clause would work with great injustice against the interests of the tenant farmer who, by this scheme, is put in a position to buy his land with State help. Let us see how the new Clause would affect his position. It is assumed by the two hon. Members that the fact that this source of credit will be open to the tenant farmers will bring further competition for land into being, and will enhance the price of the land. In certain cases where that land has to be resold by the new owner-occupier—haphazard cases chosen simply for public convenience because the land is wanted for public purposes—the new owner, the farmer-
occupier, is to be deprived of a certain proportion of what he has paid.

Mr. RILEY: No, it is the State's contribution.

Mr. GUINNESS: The State will facilitate the advance of capital to enable the tenant to buy. The tenant will pay full value to the landlord, and if there be any enhanced value it is the landlord who will get that enhanced value and the tenant who will pay it. The proposal of the hon. Members is not that we should take this enhanced value from the landlord who has received it, but that we should take it from the tenant who has had to pay it. The owner-occupier, if the land is bought from him, must repay the loan which he has received from the agricultural mortgage corporation at its full face value, with the discount, of course, of any repayments that have taken place since the loan was contracted. The increased value will not be deducted from the landlord who got the increased price, but it will be deducted from the former tenant, who has had to pay that increased price. I do not discuss whether or not you could measure this very elusive ingredient of increased price, due to this factor of a greater demand. I think it would be almost impossible to measure it. I do say, however, that if you are going to take back some of this credit which has been advanced, it is absolutely illogical and neither reasonable nor just to take it back from the former tenant, who by means of this credit and by paying the full value might have become the owner-occupier. I must, therefore, ask the House to reject this new Clause.

Mr. RILEY: What about the improvement of the land that is due to the Government advance?

Mr. GUINNESS: If the hon. Member will read his new Clause he will see that there is in it nothing about improving land. The Clause deals with land which has been acquired by means of a loan, and there is nothing about improvements. The man who would be responsible for this loan would be the purchaser, not the seller. The seller, who will have received this hypothetically increased value, will not have to disgorge. Therefore, the Clause is absolutely unjust.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: The Minister's point is intended to put us in a quandary. But, surely, if you apply his principle to another case, you may ultimately reduce it to an absurdity. Suppose that you were making some colossal benefaction. Obviously, when a sale takes place it benefits the present owner, but if you adopted our principle the prospective infliction upon the owner-to-be would be discounted in the price of to-day; the price would be modified by the fact that the State had put it on record that warning had been given that there was a benefaction by the State which was not to be paid for twice. It cannot be denied that a certain benefit is being conferred. The Minister may say that it is not a great benefit and is not a measurable benefit, but the principle surely is not altered. We submit that there is a certain recklessness on the part of the authors of the Bill, when it is looked at from the point of view of public justice. The public might very easily, in a short time, be paying a second time for what we are now doing. The Government are perhaps reducing the interest that otherwise the man would pay on his mortgage by, let us say, only one-sixth per cent., but if you want to test the justice of the thing, imagine that the method is to halve the interest. There is no difference in principle. Surely it would be evident to everyone that in that case it would be absurd to say that you should make a dole to that extent—to the present owner. You ought to give warning that the State will not pay again for that, and therefore the price would be modified accordingly.

Mr. MONTAGUE: From the statement of the Minister it seems to me that the hint which he gave quite recently—that this Measure is brought forward for the purpose of forestalling nationalisation—was a correct one. There have been attempts made to put the party on this side in a quandary, but I suggest to the Minister that when the agricultural policy of the Labour party becomes a matter of legislative concern, it must not be expected—I am speaking, of course, for myself—that this idea of putting money twice over into the hands of owners of land is going to be tolerated. That is practically what the Government proposal means. It means a benefit to the landlord, and the Minister admitted
that in his speech a minute or two ago. The right hon. Gentleman gave the whole case away regarding this Bill and the agricultural policy generally of the Government. It is another instance of "looking after our friends." We are certainly going to bear in mind this kind of tricky policy when we get a mandate—as we shall, and before long, I believe—to carry out our own agricultural policy. We shall bear this in mind, and in the Bill that we shall bring forward to put our ideas into practice we shall certainly make it impossible for this kind of ramp to go on, and for the public to suffer by the policy of the present Government in putting forward proposals that affect a time when another Government will be in power.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: With my hon. Friends I want to enter the only protest that one can enter against this handing over to a certain section of people of large sums of money, without any sort of guaranteee to the general public. The right hon. Gentleman very ingeniously pointed out the impossibility almost of applying the policy embodied in this Clause. It may be that in practice it would be found to be most difficult, but it seems to me that in any case, even if the wording of this Clause would not meet the case, the principle lurking behind the Clause is perfectly in accordance with the principles of Members who sit on these benches. Many of us have had the experience during the last eight or 10 years, during which time from five to 10 per cent. of the total agricultural area has been taken over for building purposes in this country, that agricultural land which was apparently almost valueless in 1917 or 1918, suddenly developed a value in 1919 when houses for heroes were required. The value then was five or six times the normal agricultural value. A good deal of the money provided by Parliament in 1919 and subsequent years automatically found its way into the pockets of landowners, who were not nearly as patriotic as one would like to believe that they were. This is merely one other instance.
As long as one keeps in mind the half million employés in agriculture and their wives and children, their miserable homes, and their miserably low wages and standard of life—so long as those items are kept in one's mind they are
calculated to disturb one's feelings before one votes against any assistance being rendered to improve those circumstances and conditions. But if looked at from the other point of view—and our position is based on experience—I am convinced that we shall be obliged to vote for this Clause. When the right hon. Gentleman opposes this Clause we are driven into the opposite Lobby to vote against him. It is not a vote cast against the agricultural community; it is not a vote cast because we have any desire to prevent the State rendering useful assistance to a particular industry, but it is a vote east because we are hostile to the use of State funds for bolstering up an obsolete system that is crumbling before our eyes, and bolstering it up without any sort of guaranteee to the nation and the people who have had to provide the money.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have listened with great cave to what has been said by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) but I am afraid I do not yet understand how they expect a Clause of this kind to come into operation. The governing words are that a deduction shall be made in respect of any enhanced value of the land as a result of such loan. Whatever enhanced value there is goes to the tenant farmers who are to be the beneficiaries under this Bill, and I am sure hon. Members do not wish to prevent tenant farmers getting as good terms as they can from the Government or anybody else. The second point is that I do not believe there will be any

enhanced value of the land as the result of such loans.

Mr. RILEY: Why not?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will not detain the House for more than a minute, but I hope I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member. The reason why I believe there will be no enhanced value of the land is that a loan made under this Bill will be no better than a loan ordinarily obtained. The right hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) is wrong in practice and the Minister of Agriculture is wrong in theory.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: There is the particular answer to this argument which has been given by the right hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and there is tie general answer which I can give in two or three words. Lot me give the general answer. After you have once made up your mind that you are going to use some of the assets of the State in order to give an impetus to some area of vita', importance to the State it is idle to seek to follow out all the increases in value which result from that impetus in order to recover them for the benefit of the State. By so doing you only undo the good you have done. You should be content with the indirect benefit which the State will receive owing to the increase in the general wealth and in the taxable capacity of its subjects.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 239.

Division No. 271.]
AYES.
[4.34 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, C.
Kennedy, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gosling, Harry
Lee, F.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lindley, F. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lowth, T.


Barnes, A.
Greenall, T.
Mackinder, W.


Barr, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Bromfield, William
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, George D.
Naylor, T. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Connolly, M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Purcell, A. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Riley, Ben


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson, J.


Day, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, J. C.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sutton, J. E.
Westwood, J.


Scrymgeour, E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Sexton, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Whiteley, W.


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sitch, Charles H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Windsor, Walter


Smillie, Robert
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)



Snell, Harry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wellock, Wilfred
Mr. Alien Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drewe, C.
Lamb, J. Q.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ellis, R. G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Apsley, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Long, Major Eric


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Looker, Herbert William


Atholl, Duchess of
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lougher, Lewis


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fermoy, Lord
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Balniel, Lord
Fielden, E. B.
Lumley, L. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Forrest, W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macpherson Rt. Hon. James I.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Frece, Sir Walter de
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Berry, Sir George
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bethel, A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Betterton, Henry B.
Gates, Percy
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Malone, Major P. B.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grant, Sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Briant, Frank
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meller, R. J.


Briggs, J. Harold
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Morris, R. H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Buchan, John
Hacking, Douglas H.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hamilton, Sir George
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Burman, J. B.
Hanbury, C.
Nuttall, Ellis


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oakley, T.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harris, Percy A.
Owen, Major G.


Campbell, E. T.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Penny, Frederick George


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cassels, J. D.
Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barrstaple)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Preston, William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hills, Major John Waller
Radford, E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hilton, Cecil
Raine, Sir Walter


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsden, E.


Christie, J. A.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Couper, J. B.
Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark
Sandon, Lord


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Iveagh, Countess of
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Skelton, A. N.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Storry-Deans, R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Strauss, E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Waddington, R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Withers, John James


Templeton, W. P.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Womersley, W. J.


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Watts, Sir Thomas
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wayland, Sir William A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wells, S. R.



Tinne, J. A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wiggins, William Martin
Major Sir William Cope and


Tomlinson, R. P.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwal, Northern)
 Captain Bowyer.

Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Buxton) will get all that he desires by his new Clause—[Agricultural Credit Societies]—under the Bill as it is. If he can persuade me, however, that the Bill does not meet the point, I will allow him to move it.

Mr. BUXTON: The new Clause embodies the principle put forward in the well-known agricultural credit scheme with which the name of Mr. Enfield is connected. No one can fail to notice the great value of Mr. Enfield's work in this connection. Although it may be argued that societies of this kind could be formed under the Bill as it stands the Bill does not cover the proposal made by Mr. Enfield in his report. Having said that the plans proposed would not give to the credit societies quite so much advantage as the plan of the 1923 Act the report says:
This is by no means a fatal objection, but it means that the combined liability of members would be less effective as a basis of borrowing than under the present scheme. The difficulty could, of course, be overcome by the State taking an equivalent number of shares in the new societies.
This point is not covered by the Bill as it stands.
This would mean that the State would be liable for a certain proportion of the risks, but in taking this liability it would be doing no more than it does now.
I think this Bill should contain a provision which really covers the matter of co-operative credit societies. It is a singular thing that the agricultural credit system for this country should make no mention of the plan which is practically universal. Almost all the Continental system is co-operative; and even a part of the American system. In that profoundly individualistic country you have agricultural credit societies.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now arguing the merits of the Clause. I
am not yet convinced that he cannot get what he wants under the Bill as it stands. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture is able to clear up the point.

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Member for Norfolk North (Mr. Buxton) read an extract from Mr. Enfield's report on page 59, but he will find Mr. Enfield's opinion of the scheme, described in the passage referred to, is to the effect that:
It would appear to require no further legislation.
I am strongly in favour of such schemes if the societies can work them out, and I am satisfied that no further legislation is required. The Registrar of Friendly Societies under the existing law is able to sanction such schemes as the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, and it will only lead to confusion and to a great deal of overlapping in administration if concurrent powers for sanctioning such schemes are given to the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the Minister will make it clear that this point is covered—namely, will the State be able to take shares in the scheme. That is stated to be an integral part of the success of the scheme. It is true that on page 59 Mr. Enfield says that societies could be formed, but to make them succeed the State should take shares. Is that point covered?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have very wide powers, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to help co-operative societies. When the right hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry of Agriculture he went into this matter and took a large Vote, of which I am sorry to say great advantage was not taken by the societies it was intended to help. I should not like to answer without notice whether we can take shares. I do not see why we should not. Certainly there is no mention of taking shares in the right hon. Gentle-
man's new Clause, and I do not think that the passage of this new Clause would make any difference to the existing law as to taking shares. My own impression is that we almost certainly could give assistance in this way if we founded it on a Vote in Supply in the House of Commons. So far as I can remember, the other provisions for co-operative credit from the State have been founded upon Votes in Supply and have not by any means always been founded on a Statute.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I have had considerable experience of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. What we are afraid of is that unless some regulation of this kind is made possible, this particular thing will not be done. Anyone can form a society and make rules for the members and submit them to the Chief Registrar, and so long as they do not contravene the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts from 1893–1913, he cannot refuse to register the rules and to approve them, whereas they may be detrimental to the people who are going to work them. If, on the other hand, we give power to the Minister to make specific regulations for the governing of co-operative societies, the Minister for the time being will have regard to the requirements of this particular Act in giving sanction to the specific regulations for the societies so formed. That is why it is so important that we should have the provision in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am still of the same opinion that this new Clause as it stands is not one that can be accepted.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to make advances, etc., to agricultural mortgage loan company.)

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out paragraph (a).
When this Amendment was moved in the Standing Committee the Minister of Agriculture said that it was destructive of the main purpose of the Bill. During the whole of the debates on that occasion we were unconvinced that this particular paragraph ought to remain as part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends sitting behind him persistently argue in Committee and in the House that there
is a universal desire on the part of the tenant farmers to become owner-occupiers, and they proceed to argue that the farmer who owns a farm will work much harder for himself than he will do while he happens to be a tenant farmer. We find that in practice that does not work out, neither do we see why there should be any greater effort on the part of the farmer when he becomes owner of his holding than he will put forth during the time that he is the tenant, since the results of his effort would find its way into his own pockets as tenant just as they would do were he the owner-occupier.
In arguing the question in Committee, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) brought forward what I thought were very conclusive figures, which might well have satisfied the average individual, to the effect that the demand of the tenant to become owner-occupier was not so large as the Minister would have us believe. The hon. Member recalled to our mind the fact that under the Land Settlement Act and the Small Holdings Act of 1908, 14,000 small holdings were created and every smallholder had the privilege of becoming the owner of his holding if he so desired, but of these 14,000 cases only slightly over 230 smallholders purchased their holdings. Under the later Land Settlement Act of 1919, some 16,000 persons were settled upon small holdings. Here, again, we find that of the 16,000 persons who were settled en the small holdings only 300 purchased their holdings, although in every case, had the desire been there, the tenant could have become the owner-occupier. We have 30,000 people settled upon separate holdings, and of this number only 530 tenants have desired to become owner-occupiers. Taking these figures as a fair guide, it seems to me that the desire is not there, neither can we see any tangible improvement taking place by means of State funds being placed at the disposal of individuals so that they may be permitted to secure a mortgage on holdings which they intend subsequently to purchase.
During the Debate in March, 1927, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) resented a reference made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) with
regard to smallholders as being inefficient, and so forth. On that occasion the hon. Member for Cambridge said that the Cambridge County Council managed their small holdings estate as efficiently as any agricultural holding in any part of the country was managed. He appeared to be satisfied that there was no desire on the part of the tenants to become the owner-occupiers, since they were doing fairly well and the holdings were administered efficiently under united ownership, as are the holdings in the County of Cambridge. Whilst dealing with the question of multiplicity of owner-occupiers, it seems to me very curious that on the Crown lands the tenants rarely express a desire to become owners. They are content to use the soil to secure the maximum quantity of food and to make the best out of the industry that they can as tenants, without becoming owner-occupiers. As the holdings of the Crown represent a considerable area, it would appear that again there is no indication of a general desire for a multiplicity of owner-occupiers.
Should this paragraph remain in the Bill it may well be that the disadvantages will outweigh the advantages. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb), speaking on the question of the relations of the tenant with the landowner, either as a good landowner or as a poor landowner, said that there was no industry in the country in which capital had been provided at such a low rate of interest as by landlords for agriculture, and that there were cases where the interest on the capital had been nil, except the amenity rights of living in a large house and perhaps the shooting rights on the estate. If the rents paid by the tenant farmer are so small that they provide little or no income for the landowner, and the farmer under the terms of this Bill secures a grant with which to purchase his holding, the difference, according to the hon. Member for Stone, will be somewhere in the region of two to two-and-a-half per cent. on the capital value of the land as compared with the five and three-quarters per cent. that he would have to pay under the terms of this Bill. If agriculture is depressed on the basis of a payment of two to two-and-a-half per cent. to the landlords, how is
the agriculturist going to prosper on the payment of a five and three-quarters per cent. rate of interest under this Bill, when he has purchased his land? The statement of the hon. Member for Stone was perfectly correct, and I do not see how he can argue that the tenant farmer who is depressed and who can barely pay his small rent, which only provides a very small income for the landowner, can afford to buy his holding and pay five and three-quarters per cent. interest on the amount of money that he borrows for that particular purpose. From that point of view, the main purpose of the Bill will not have the effect that he anticipates.
It may well be that you have to consider the number of farmers who possess more than one-third of the present value of their holdings. In that case, advantage would accrue in being able to borrow from the Treasury at a rate of interest which would be less than the interest on an overdraft from the bank or on any advance or accommodation secured elsewhere, but the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not the main purpose of the Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is to get a multiplicity of small owner-occupiers. Once we examine the whole situation and we note the comparatively small number of people who own their holdings and at the same time have more than one-third of liquid capital on the present value of their holdings, we shall find that the number will be infinitesimal. A number of those who have purchased their holdings since the War, largely due to pressure from the landlord, who had no alternative, due to circumstances over which he had no control, will derive no benefit whatever under the terms of this Bill. Those who may secure opportunities under the Bill—I will not say privileges, because I do not think they will be privileges—will be the persons who want to buy their holdings outright; but they will be called upon to pay anything up to five and three-quarters per cent. interest for the money they borrow. When the landowner tells us that the rent is only equivalent to approximately two-and-a-half per cent. on the value of the land, it is not going to be an advantage to the farmer to have to pay five and three-quarters per cent. In the other case, if the farmer does possess a certain amount of capital which is
locked up in some way, the new corporation provides a key to the financial situation and he will obtain liquid capital for the purpose of improving his requisites and so forth.
5.0 p.m.
Generally, it seems to me, this part of the Bill is not going to do the thing that we on these benches, and I imagine the majority of hon. Members opposite, desire to be done, and which will certainly have to be done, before agriculture will be as prosperous as the nation would like to see it. All over the country there is a lack of equipment, a lack of manures, due to shortage of capital, and if individuals are to be advised and encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman, where they have a few thousand pounds or a few hundred pounds, to lock up their capital by purchasing their holdings, leaving them in a position that they can no longer get the maximum value from the land, you will not do agriculture any good by this Bill, but you will do an infinite amount of harm. Therefore, I suggest that that is one reason why we ought to hesitate before we allow this Clause to go through in its present form. There is another great disadvantage attaching to the creation of a large number of small owners of land. The drainage difficulties are almost insurmountable when you have so many different sets of people—occupiers of the high lands, and the low lands, and the mid lands—with whom to negotiate, before you can apply a scheme for draining the whole of an area. A Commission, set up by the right hon. Gentleman himself told us that there were millions of acres of agricultural land suffering from lack of drainage, and the right hon. Gentleman, speaking in an agricultural Debate in March, 1927, said:
I hope in the course of the next day or two to introduce a Drainage Bill which will affect very large areas of fertile land which are threatened with flooding and loss of fertility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1927; col. 962, Vol. 204.]
That Bill was introduced and a sum of £1,000,000 was at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman to assist this great scheme. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman himself that it was because of the multiplicity of interests in the area concerned that the Bill was finally thrown out after being sent to a Special Committee. That large area of
fertile land, which was threatened then with flooding and loss of fertility, is still undrained. As has been said on many occasions in this House, where you have 1,000 people to negotiate with it is well-nigh impossible to secure agreement, unless agreement is imposed upon them by the Government or some similar body. The creation of a large number of owner-occupiers all over the country will not assist but will retard these drainage schemes. It will not help to bring back into cultivation large areas of agricultural land, but will tend rather to send more and more acres out of cultivation, reducing the opportunities for employment and adding to our already great national difficulties in this respect. This part of the Bill, designed ostensibly to assist persons who have already purchased their holdings, will only assist a very small number of them. It may, however, encourage others to purchase their holdings at a price which farmers cannot afford to pay. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) in the Committee said there were landowners who wanted to sell land, and farmers who wanted to buy land, but farmers had not the money with which to purchase it. So they come to the State for £2,500,000, more or less in the form of a gift, to enable them to buy the land which the landowner is anxious to sell. The principle is wrong, and there is great danger in carrying it through. I feel, and my hon. Friends feel, that the disadvantages attaching to the creation of a multiplicity of small owner-occupiers far outweigh any advantages that may accrue.

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to second the Amendment. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to alter the Title of this Bill. The Bill purports to increase credit facilities to farmers for the pursuit of agriculture, but I think it is fairly certain that its effect in a vast number of cases will be just the opposite. I think there is no doubt that it will lead to a great many sales of property. It will make it much easier for tenants and others to find the money with which to buy, and probably we shall see an immense number of sales. From the Minister's point of view, that will be a great success for his Bill, but what will be the effect on the farmers? Many farmers who are now carrying on tolerably well, who are able to get advantages from the bank and who are not in any great diffi-
culties will be obliged to put their hands deep into their pockets to help to find the money to buy and their situation will become worse than it was before. Does not everyone know of farmers over whom hangs the fear of the property being sold and broken up, compelling them either to buy, or to go out of business, or to take all the risks of removal? That fear hangs over the heads of farmers like a sword of Damocles in thousands of cases. I noticed that in his Second Reading speech the Minister skimmed lightly over this matter. Dealing in the early part of his speech with the object of the corporation, he said that it would operate where transfer was necessary. That covered a very small part of the ground, and then the Minister hurried on to another aspect of the matter.
Supporters of the Bill may draw a parallel with Ireland, but there you had a totally different aim in supplying the capital to enable the owners to unload. You had a definite, avowed, and legitimate political object in that case. I do not think that anyone will frankly say that the political object of this Bill is one which its authors would like to parade. It ought properly to be called a Landowners' Relief (Small Ownership) Bill because, as my hon. Friend the Mover has said, and, as was practically admitted in the Second Reading Debate, its aim is sub-division. If not, what is its aim? There is no great difficulty in raising money on mortgage now. In fact it is quite easy. We must regard the Bill as an attempt to put a spoke in the wheel of nationalisation. The question of nationalisation is absolutely relevant to this part of the Bill, but we have had that question already threshed out in this House and I am not going to labour it again. I would only remind hon. Members opposite of an authority who will be recognised on their side as not being a Labour party man at all. He is, as far as I know, a man of their own views. I refer to Professor Orwin, who is, perhaps, the weightiest authority against the view that the way in which to save and to improve agriculture is to increase private ownership. He says:
The only person who can supply the necessary pressure in favour of better farming is the landlord, and, if the State were constituted the universal landlord, it would be possible to define conditions subject to which land was to be held so as to main-
tain the maximum possible amount of cultivation.
It is enough to quote one irrefutable authority as to the advantage of public ownership and to show that it is not a fantastic proposal at all but an arguable proposition. We submit that it is not proper by a side wind to introduce a plan of the kind proposed in this Bill. I remember the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman saying on one occasion that the State would be so far driven to help the farmer and the owner, in one way and another, that we should be landed by a side wind into nationalisation. Is this Bill a desperate attempt to avoid the result foretold by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office? I think Lord Irwin was not looking upon the giving of ownership to the State as an evil but as probably the best prospect for the improvement of agriculture. What is the point of view of the farmer? The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) must know a vast number of them who would appeal to this House, if it were of any use to do so, to be saved from having to buy their farms. I do not think anyone will say that this Bill will help the farmer to avoid buying his farm. If he knows that, in any case, a sale will be forced upon him and that the property is going to be broken up, he will be thankful for help in raising a mortgage, but we all know that the question of whether properties are sold or not, is generally affected by the other question of whether farmers or others are likely to prove keen purchasers of the farms.
I think the result of the Measure will, on the whole, be bad for the farmers. It is, unfortunately, not the case that the new occupying owners have proved better farmers than the tenant farmers. The evidence is the other way. I suppose that was partly the reason why Lord Lee introduced the Act of 1920, to make permanent the system of control which he thought would be increasingly necessary because, owing to increased security, the farmer had become independent of any sort of control. He had a much greater independence than existed before the owners became unable to apply pressure in favour of better farming. That, I suppose, was the reason for Lord Lee's Act—as regards the control part of which, I suppose, we all regretted its repeal in the succeeding
year. I think if the Minister looks at the matter from the point of view of the improvement of agriculture, he will feel in his heart that he is promoting a scheme which does not really benefit agriculture but which has some other motive—brought in, as I have said, by a side wind. The Bill aims, undoubtedly, at a Conservative party advantage and I think it is practically admitted that the party advantage in question is the prevention of the nationalisation of the land. I hope that the Minister in arguing for this main proposal of the Bill, will try to show if there is any national advantage accruing from it in relation to agriculture.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. In view of the exciting nature of this Debate and the heat of the evening may we have the windows open?

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) has done well to focus the attention of the House on the real object of this Bill. He has made the discovery that we have brought forward this Bill in order to defeat nationalisation. We never made any secret of it. We have never been convinced that nationalisation would be for the advantage of the tenant or for the advantage of agricultural production. We have, however, seen, as everyone must see, that landlords are often unable to provide the necessary capital, and we have been bound to offer an alternative to what we consider the very unwise proposal of hon. Members opposite that the State should become the universal landlord. I do not believe that there is any considerable agricultural opinion in favour of that policy. I doubt whether hon. Members of the Liberal party are strongly in favour of that policy. When it was first proposed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that there should be rapid and simultaneous nationalisation, and that we could not afford to wait, the proposals were not greeted with acclamation, and at the conference that subsequently took place we know that graduality, to use a terrible word, was substituted for the heroic measures originally proposed. So I do not think that we on this side are alone in having doubts as to the wisdom of the policy of nationalisation, which the right hon. Gentleman quite truly says is the alternative to filling up
the gaps which have developed under the conditions of post-war stringency in the present system of landlords and tenants. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in moving the Amendment, argued that there was no desire on the part of the occupier to become the freeholder, and he based that opinion very largely on experience under the earlier Small Holdings Act.

Mr. RILEY: And the second one.

Mr. GUINNESS: He did not base it on the Act which we passed the year before last. Under the pre-War Act and the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act of 1919, there was every discouragement to the tenant becoming the landowner, and in the case of the 1919 Act he, the tenant, paid rent on a written-down value, and that value had no regard to the cost of providing the accommodation, but merely took into account what a tenant could be reasonably expected to pay. If, however, he claimed his right to buy the land, he had to pay the actual cost to the public authority of acquiring that land, and the Small Holdings Acts prior to the Act of 1926 were deliberately drawn up with a bias against owner-occupation. Of course, I cannot state what amount of advantage will be taken of these facilities, but I believe, from the information which reaches me, that it is by no means easy for the tenant in many cases to get the mortgage advances which the right hon. Member for Norfolk, North, said he could so easily obtain. I get a considerable correspondence from farmers who have had their mortgages called in, and these farmers ask how soon these new facilities will be available, because they are at their wit's end to know how to tide over. They cannot, they say, find other mortgagees who are prepared to accept the transfer of the mortgages.
The hon. Member for Don Valley seemed to think that our proposal was in some way a reflection on the advantage of the landlord-tenant system. It is nothing of the kind. I have over and over again stated in this House that, in my opinion, the landlord-tenant system is the most favourable system for the average occupier. Under that system of rental the occupier has had the advantage of his fixed capital at a lower rate of interest than any other system can conceivably give him. It has had this
advantage also, that it provided a buffer for the tenant in time of economic depression, but it is universally admitted that such demands are being made on the landlords that the provision of capital is not fully equal to the needs of the industry; and it is no criticism of that system that we should admit that where gaps develop we have to mend them.
I was very much interested at one valuable admission which I think the hon. Member for Don Valley made in the Standing Committee, when he said that the object of this Bill was to create a lot of little landowners, a lot of little future Tories. Why are these little landowners going to be little future Tories if the credit facilities are to be as disastrous to them as hon. Members opposite make out? Hon. Members opposite are very apt to attribute interested motives to all political action. If these voters are going to be future little Tories, is it going to be from sympathy with us in our failure to produce a good system, or out of gratitude for a system which they know is going to succeed?
I really cannot tell what demand will be made on the new Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. We have made provision as far as we can for the probable necessities of that Corporation. We have also made arrangements that if the demand does not come up to what we expect under certain conditions, and the ratio of Government advances should exceed the outstanding loans, the money can be repaid to the State. I believe that these facilities are required, and it is primarily because of this need for finding fixed capital for the land that we have incorporated Part I in this Bill. The improvement side of the question is comparatively small, and I can only repeat what I said in Committee that this Amendment is destructive of Part I of the Bill, and that it is impossible for hon. Members opposite to go down to the country and to say that they are in favour of credit facilities for farmers and the improvement of their position, and at the same time to vote for this Amendment.

Mr. LAMB: I should be the last to impute motives to those who put forward this Amendment, but undoubtedly it is an essential part of the Bill, and, whatever the motives, the effect of the
Amendment would undoubtedly be to wreck the Bill. Consequently, I am very much against the Amendment. The right hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Buxton) said that this was an effort to put a spoke in the wheel of nationalisation. I will not debate that, as it has been mentioned by the Minister, but I am sure that this Amendment, if carried, would be an absolute block to the working of the Bill, so that it is really a spoke in the wheel which is proposed to provide credit facilities for agriculture. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred to the statement which I made some time ago with regard to the percentage amount received from land by landowners, and the infinitesimal amount in percentage which was received on the capital which landowners had to provide for agriculture. I adhere entirely to what I said previously, but I cannot see the relevancy of it to this Bill, because the percentage received from land is not due only to the item which he mentioned, that, is to say, the rents received for land, but it is the rents received, or the incomings, when they have been made, and the outgoings also, and consequently I do not see how it refers to this Bill, which proposes to give advances to agriculturists upon the present value of the land, and the value, of course, is estimated after they have taken into consideration both the incomings and the outgoings, because the present value is the value only upon which any advance will be made in future.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the hon. Member can see the relevancy when, as he said, rents are fixed on such a basis that the net income for the landowner is practically nil, while for the tenant farmer to become the owner of his holding he must borrow his money or two-thirds of the then value at 5¾ per cent.

Mr. LAMB: The amount the borrower will have to pay will be on the capital value, and the capital value will be fixed on the returns to come from that land in the first instance. He also said that farmers wish to buy their farms. They do not. The farmer prefers to be a tenant under a good landlord, but the point is that under present conditions the farmers are forced to buy their farms, and this is a genuine effort to enable them to retain a home over their heads,
and a farm, which is the only occupation probably that they understand. It is an effort to get them out of a difficulty which is not sought by them but is forced upon them by circumstances. If this Amendment were carried, it would wreck the Bill, and consequently I hope it will not be pressed. If it is, I shall have to vote against it. Farmers are looking forward with great eagerness to the advantages which they hope to receive under this Bill. Only to-day I received a letter asking me when the facilities under this Bill were really to become available, as they were waiting for them, and I returned the last page of the Bill and said the Bill was to be discussed to-day, and that I hoped it would go through another place, and be available for them on the date mentioned on the last page of the Bill. They are looking for it, and they require it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reasons which have just been given by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) for voting for this portion of the Clause must, I feel quite sure, hold good with regard to the farms which he knows best, for he has always been a consistent advocate of larger credit facilities being provided for the agricultural community, but with his knowledge of farming he must be very well aware that all farmers are not in the same position. Far from it. There is undoubtedly a demand in some districts for the ownership of the farms, which are now in the hands of tenants, whose families have been there for generations, and they would be very glad to be the owners of their holdings. There are some counties in England, as well as in Wales, where these sitting tenants have a traditional connection with the land even longer than that of the landlords who own the land, and in those cases there is a genuine desire to be the owners of the land and to feel themselves in the secure position of freeholders. It very often happens that their income is not entirely dependent on those farms, but is augmented from outside, and they may have other occupations which enable them to make the farm part of the interest which they have in life, and enable them, perhaps, to plant out members of their families. These problems are not as simple as they sound. You cannot regard all farmers as alike. They vary
enormously, and they vary in regard to their individual circumstances. Taking them as a whole, it is true that most farmers are content to go on with the landlord and tenant system so long as it works, but, when it breaks down, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that then is the time when they will look round in any direction for such assistance as they can obtain.
Of one thing I am sure, and that is that farmers in this country are not clamouring for nationalisation, and no single agricultural community in the world is in favour of it. In countries where nationalisation has been carried to the most thorough extent, the farmers are most firmly opposed to it in their industry. The general desire of farmers, I am afraid, will not be of very much guidance to the Minister when he is dealing with this subject. He is dealing in this portion of the Bill with exceptional cases. Whatever may be said about little Tories, he cannot be said to be actuated by purely political motives. I am certain that he is well aware of the grievances which have arisen in a great many districts where estates have been broken up, and the old system has ceased to exist. If the general desire is to go on as at present, and he is only dealing with exceptional cases, it is open to us to consider where these exceptional cases mostly are. I do not think that they are to be found among the smallholders. They are like other farmers, they are always anxious to get a larger acreage; they always want a farm larger than the farm they occupy now. The small holding is a stepping stone to something better. Smallholders under the Small Holdings Act who are on land owned by the Crown and the county councils consist mainly of people who do not expect to remain, or indeed do not contemplate remaining permanently on their holdings. All that they want is complete fairness of treatment while they are there, and that their small holdings will not be grouped together once more in large farms. They will go on just as before. They will not come to the Minister or the corporation or to anybody else to ask for money on mortgage. Then you come to the second category, the comparatively small farmers, who may have other interests, and who in some parts of the country are engaged in the culture, for instance, of flowers and the like, where
a large acreage does not matter. I think that it is probable in this category there may be a good many cases where applications will be made cither to the banks or to the corporation for advances. When you come to the larger farmers, you are more likely to meet with the kind of grievances described by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and with the cases which, it is hoped under this Bill, may be met. If that really is a fair description of the kind of demand that will be made for these advances, let us next consider how the advances are to be made and on what principles.
It is clear that under the Bill it will be impossible to work this Corporation unless the Government and the Corporation adhere to the principle of having one-third margin of safety for all advances. If that margin of safety were reduced, the interest would have to go up to such a level as to make it not worth while. In every case of purchase, somehow or other the tenant has to find himself one-third of the gross value of his farm. Where is he going to find it? He may find it amongst his friends; he may have it in his own savings; there may be other means, which are not known to the general public, whereby he can raise enough money for the purpose. But he is to get only two-thirds from the corporation, and the interest which he is to pay to the corporation for that advance will be no less than he would have to pay to the banks. The only difference between them is that the advance which he gets from the bank can never be given on a permanent basis, while the advance from the corporation will be on a permanent basis. He will be secured. I said on the Second Beading of this Bill that I did not think that it would be a great advantage to the farmers. But I can see some advantage in the case which I have specified; it will be welcomed by some farmers who are being compelled to buy their own farms. I give to the Minister such credit as he deserves for having introduced in this portion of the Bill an element of real advantage to the disturbed farmer. Having said that, it is all that I can say in favour of the proposal. It shows that there is something in it. It is not going to be very cheap, but it will ease the minds of certain individuals and lead to a small number of advances being made, but it cannot have a general
application, and will have no bearing whatever on our general system.
The best way of examining this Bill and all proposals of this kind is to ask what effect it will have on agriculture as a whole. I venture to say that it will have practically no effect at all. It will certainly grant ease in certain exceptional cases, but as far as agriculture as a whole is concerned, it will leave things very much as they were before. When we come to a later stage of the Bill, we may have to discuss the financial bearings of this scheme in respect to credit for working capital accommodation, but I would like to point out, in passing, that it is impossible for the whole of these advances to be made with the margin of one-third, without it drying up the credit that the occupier will have on his freehold. There will be nothing left on which he can raise money. He may have to turn to the second portion of the Bill, and deal with his chattel mortgage, but, as far as Hs farm is concerned, this will be the end of his tether; he will be able to get no further assistance, and he is not likely to get that assistance cheaply. If the Minister can give some assurance that will, either through co-operative societies or some other method which appeals to the farming mind, ease the burden in regard to that one-third payment in cash, he will take a great step forward, not only in settling people on the land, but in leaving those who are there to attend with unembarrassed minis to the land that they occupy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not regard this scheme as an alternative to the co-operative scheme, nor as a solution of the whole problem. If he can combine it with the co-operative scheme, it will be of some use.

Mr. RILEY: There is one aspect of this Amendment which has not been given adequate attention. That aspect is the justification of Parliament seeking to legislate to afford facilities to people to secure private property at the expense of the State. The Minister made a rather extraordinary admission. He said it was quits true that the main purpose of this Bill was to defeat nationalisation. It is an extraordinary statement in that it indicates political bias with regard to a Measure of supposed general national importance.

Mr. GUINNESS: Is it political bias to be against nationalisation, but not political bias to be in favour of it?

Mr. RILEY: It is political bias either one way or the other, if the object is purely of a political character and not of a national character. I have always understood that the purpose of this Bill is not the question either of nationalisation or private ownership, but the improvement of agriculture. The purpose, as I understood it, of a Credits Bill, which has been in the air for years and years, is not to afford means to enable occupiers to become owners of their farms, but to develop agriculture. We have learned, however, that that is not the purpose of this Bill, but that its purpose is to defeat nationalisation. It may or may not be desirable that occupying tenants should become the owners of their farms; that is a debatable point. What I submit is that Parliament is not justified in using national income and the common purse in order to enable people to become owners of private property. Upon what grounds can it be justified that any Government has a right to call upon the general taxpayers—because this is what this Bill does—to enable a small number of people to become owners of private property? A remarkable statement was made in Committee on this Bill, and it was confirmed in the speech of the Minister. He said that this paragraph was the main feature of this part of the Bill. On the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) referred to a statement made by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who had said that something between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 would be required under this Bill during the next three years for the purpose of these mortgages for the purchase of land. The hon. Member for Hillsborough said:
The hon. and gallant Baronet seems to suggest that £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 will be required in respect of one point for which we require an Amendment, that is, the Section of the Bill which deals entirely with the financing of land purchase.
The hon. Baronet, the Member for Rye, then said:
Yes, I do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 12th June, 1928; cols. 10–11.]
What is involved in this proposal, which this Amendment is opposing, is a part of the Bill which the Minister admits, and which was admitted in Committee, would involve probably £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 during the next three years for advances for the purchase of land. There is no difference of opinion as to Parliament doing anything it can to encourage credit combinations or to afford credits for the improvement of land and better cultivation, and on this side of the House we say that by every means we should encourage occupiers and cultivators, and even owners, to put money into the improvement of the land. We say it is no part of the duty of the State to provide money to facilitate a mere change of ownership. If people want to buy property it is their own concern, and they ought not to come to this House for a subsidy. It has been pointed out that this Bill involves a loss of £12,000,000 to the State, and there is no justification for such a policy.
On the general question of the desire for credit facilities for the purchase of land, I agree with the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) that there is no doubt whatever that a number of farmers probably want to buy the farms which they occupy, but, judging by experience, the overwhelming number of farmers and smallholders have shown no desire to become owners. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has quoted the experience of the 1919 Act, Of 30,000 people who became smallholders only some 500 availed themselves of the facilities to acquire their holdings. The Minister said that circumstances then were different, but what has happened under the Act of 1926? How many persons have applied to purchase their holdings since 1926, with all the facilities which were afforded to them? I venture to prophesy that it has not been more than 100. In the six years from 1908 to 1914 14,000 tenants were settled—tenants, not owners. That was at the rate of 2,000 per annum. Since 1919 they have been settled at the rate of 3,000 per annum.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Surely the hon. Member forgets the sum of £5,000,000 which was advanced?

Mr. RILEY: The argument of the Minister earlier in the Debate was that the conditions under the old Act did not
encourage people to become purchasers, but now we have the new conditions, and I submit that the experience is still the same, that is, that very few desire to purchase their holdings. Therefore, I say, the House is not justified in providing State money to facilitate the exchange of property when that money could be better devoted to the purposes of cultivation.

Mr. ROY WILSON: I would like to deal with some of the remarks advanced in support of this Amendment by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley). I will deal first with the rather astonishing remarks of the hon. Member for Dewsbury. He spent quite a lot of time in making a violent protest against any effort on the part of the Government to assist people who require to purchase their property. I wonder if he and those who think with him have completely forgotten the Wheatley Act, the Act of his own party, subsidising houses in order to enable people to acquire private property. [Interruption.] It was not only municipal authorities who were helped; private people were subsidised in the same way. The remarks of the three hon. Members very largely cancel themselves out. The hon. Member for Don Valley said that this Bill was going to be no good to the farmer, and that very little advantage would be taken of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk said we should see a large number of sales, and that a large number of persons would take advantage of the Bill, but he also went on to say that the result would be bad for the farmer. I submit that the farmer is much the best judge of whether the results are going to be good or bad. At any rate, one thing clearly emerges, and that is that the Labour party have made it apparent to the House, and I hope to the country, that they are not in favour of doing anything to help the small farmer who wants to obtain his farm under the provisions of this Bill. I am quite sure that when that is known those members of the farming community who have saved a little money and want to take advantage of this Bill will know exactly where they stand in relation to the Labour party.
A most important thing in connection with this Bill is that it provides that a borrower who can put up one-third of the value of his farm can take advantage of the facilities to be offered by the Agricultural Corporation to obtain a loan over a period up to 60 years to enable him to purchase that farm. This facility is unique. No financial institution, no loan corporation and no private people will make advances against mortgage for a definite and fixed period of 60 years. Those who are able and willing to take advantage of this Bill are getting a very material advantage, getting something which is quite new in this country, and that is a long-term loan to enable them to acquire their property. That is undoubtedly going to be of considerable help to a fair number of people engaged in agriculture. It is obvious that this Measure will not benefit the man who bought his farm at the top price and already has an advance from his bank or somewhere else, and I do not think it is designed to do it, but at any rate it is going to be of considerable assistance to those in the other category which I have mentioned.
Personally, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture upon bringing forward this Bill. The Amendment, if passed, would undoubtedly kill that side of it which provides for long-term loans, and I am very pleased to think that the Government, by this Bill, and on what I regard as sound and prudent financial lines, are giving an impetus to what is a great feature of Conservative policy, namely, helping those people who desire to do so to obtain a little bit of land. That will help to consolidate not the position of our own party but that growing body of men and women who, because they have a stake in the country, because they have a little bit of England for their own, will take far more interest in politics and will take a wider and saner view of the problems of the country.

Mr. MORRIS: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) has pointed out that if this Amendment be accepted it will have the effect of defeating the object of the Bill. I dare say that may be true, and if it were true that would be a reason, as far as I am concerned, for supporting the Amendment. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) that there are limited advantages attaching to the Bill. There is an advantage, for instance, so far as the Bill will give the farmer who is a borrower greater security with regard to his loan; but I would commend to the attention of the hon. Member for Lichfield the views of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who has made a very vital objection to this Bill, and whose views upon this subject are entitled to the very greatest respect.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Not to this part of the Bill.

Mr. MORRIS: It is provided that there shall be priority to the banks in regard to any advances made upon the land, and the hon. and learned Member has pointed out that if this paragraph is deleted it will have the effect of doing away with the second part of the Bill, and he suggested that that would be a very great service to the farmer. As the hon. and learned Member has pointed out, the Bill as it stands is not merely an agricultural credit Bill.

Mr. ROY WILSON: May I ask whether it is not the fact that if a mortgage were executed on land upon which a farmhouse were built the mortgage would not also include the farmhouse?

Mr. MORRIS: If you make a mortgage upon the land and then subsequently give a charge to a bank, the effect, as far as the mortgage is concerned, is that all the rights are done away with. That is the argument of the hon. and learned Member, and it is a vital argument. The result of this Bill will be that it will be difficult for the farmer to obtain credit from the bank, and there is no guarantee that he is going to obtain a two-thirds advance. The bank may only advance one-third, or whatever proportion of the two-thirds it thinks fit. The effect of this Amendment would be to throw back the second part of the Bill, it may be for reconsideration, and we might then have a proper agricultural credits Bill brought forward rather than a Bill which will have the effect of drying up agricultural credits altogether.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I would like to repudiate the suggestion that this is a wrecking Amendment. It is not intended
to be a wrecking Amendment. Our view is that unless paragraph (a) is left out, the advantages of paragraph (b) will be considerably minimised. If you are going to put the State behind small farmers who want to buy their farms, you will cause them to mortgage what little capital they have got, and they will check their expenditure upon improvements and the real development of farming in order to pay off those mortgages. It seems to me that paragraph (a) will really interfere with what is presumably the main purpose of the Bill—apart from its political purposes—and that is an increase of farming and better farming. In the course of the discussion the Minister and a number of hon. Members have said that for the average farmer the tenant-farmer system is the best, but that there are some farmers who want to buy their farms. It was suggested they might want to buy them in order to keep a roof over their heads, and from the Liberal benches it has been suggested that it was desirable to afford tenant farmers an opportunity of acquiring their farms, because many of them have been associated with their land even longer than have the present owners of that land.
6.0 p.m.
My point of view is that it is no business of the State to take account of the desires of the farmers to buy their holdings unless it can be definitely shown, without a shadow of doubt, that the result of creating a multiplicity of small owner occupiers will be to increase production in agriculture. No attempt has been made to prove anything of the kind. We were told a moment or two ago that farmers would be opposed to nationalisation, and that it would be a bad thing for the farming industry, the suggestion being that we are proposing, by implication, in this Amendment that the State should carry out the whole industry of farming. We are not proposing anything of the kind. What we propose is that the State should be the owner of the land. We have been told that nationalisation would be bad for farming. That may be so or it may not be so, but, at any rate, we should be told why the national ownership of land would make farming worse than it is to-day.
Surely farming at the present moment is bad enough under private enterprise. You have tried private enterprise for a great many years, with the result that
the most important industry in the country is in a deplorable state of decay, and farmers have had to come to the State in the first instance to be relieved of 50 per cent. of their rates, then 75 per cent., and now 100 per cent. The agricultural community have obtained other advantages from the State, and now they are asking the State to back them up in the purchase of their farms in order that they may acquire private property on principles other than those of private enterprise. Private enterprise has brought the agricultural industry to its present position. The difficulties of agriculture are not going to be solved by private enterprise any more than the other larger questions of industry. All our big industrialists have thrown competition and private enterprise overboard. That is admitted on every hand, and the last refuge of private enterprise and individualism has practically gone. Take, for example, the small shopkeeper. Your small tobacconist does not blend his own tobacco and make his own cigars and snuff as he used to do in the old days, and he is now simply the agent for some multiple firm.
We have been told that the only salvation of agriculture is the multiplicity of owner occupiers, but my view is that the problems of agriculture cannot be satisfactorily settled on national lines and they must be looked at from an international point of view. At the present moment, we depend upon foreign countries for the greater part of our food supplies, and why do we not cultivate the land up to the point of producing all we require in the way of food supplies? According to the law of supply and demand it would be cheaper to produce our own food. In the Argentine and other large food-producing countries, you have horizontal cultivation as against vertical cultivation in this country, and that makes production cheaper abroad because it involves less labour, and there are vast areas of land which are almost unlimited. In these circumstances, it is possible to leave nature to provide the chemicals free without the cost of manuring which is necessary in the case of cultivation in this country. The result is that the cost of production per acre in this country is higher than it is in Canada or Australia.
Let me take the other point of view. Where you have small cultivation and individualism in full blast as you have in Belgium, Holland and France, there is more vertical cultivation than is necessary in this country and the man-power required there is higher than in this country. If you are going to try to solve the question of the production of foodstuffs in this country by means of small proprietorships and small methods, you will have to make absolute slaves of everybody concerned with the cultivation of the land. You can only get vertical cultivation upon those principles if it is going to be economical. That is the reason why we are opposed to the idea of maintaining the system of small proprietorship and small cultivation, and that is why we believe in the public ownership of the land. Nothing has been said to justify the statement that nationalisation is always bad for industry, including agriculture, and there has never been any attempt to justify that statement.

Mr. MORRIS: If that be so, why did the Labour party support the Small Holdings Act?

Mr. MONTAGUE: If my views are correct, the Labour party did support ideal small holdings, but they do not wart smallholders to be nothing more than gardeners.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: A small fanner is not a gardener.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I have studied this subject, and I do not agree that working farmers only are entitled to speak on this subject.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: What I suggest is that before the hon. Member speaks on this question he should know something about it, and not speak merely from a sentimental point of view. It is clear that the hon. Member does not know much about the subject when he says that farming is only gardening.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am very much concerned for the future of agriculture and when I use the term "gardening" I mean that you have to pay such individual attention to a small holding that what you are doing is practically indistinguishable from gardening. You cannot solve a great industrial problem
upon those lines, and you must get down to bigger ideas and bigger facts, recognising that you have to compete with foreign countries and with foreign sources of food supply. Consequently, you must have better machinery as well as co-operative methods, and a better marketing system. It is useless to have small pieces of land to cultivate. What is required is larger farming under conditions where experts and people who really understand the problem from a large point of view will have some control. The Minister of Agriculture suggests that the purpose of this Bill is not to advantage British agriculture but to forestall the policy of the Labour party for the nationalisation of the land.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is quite wrong in saying that I ever said the object of this Bill was to forestall the Labour policy of the nationalisation of the land.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The right hon. Gentleman said that his policy was to create a multiplicity of owner-occupiers, and that would forestall the Labour policy of the nationalisation of the land.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is confusing the Debate which took place on Part I of the Measure with the general purposes of the Bill. Part I is concerned with providing the capital for land purchase and Part II is framed with the object of providing working capital. Both those sections are framed with the object of helping British agriculture, and there is no foundation whatever for the hon. Member putting in my mouth words to the effect that I have stated that this Bill was not framed for the purpose of helping agriculture.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I think the last remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture constitute the best argument I have heard for the rejection of paragraph (a). The right hon. Gentleman says that the purpose of this Bill is to provide working capital and capital for improvements, but paragraph (a) does nothing of the kind, because it provides capital for people to buy private property. What we have put forward is a sincere Amendment which aims at the elimination of something that is quite unnecessary and undesirable, and which would mean the holding up of capital in
the development of farming and the agricultural industry generally.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: We have now had a long Debate on this particular Amendment, and I think it is just as well to point out at this stage that while some hon. Members claim that this Measure is going to be for the benefit of the farmer, there has been no evidence forthcoming from any part of the country showing that there is any enthusiasm amongst farmers for this Bill. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) has stated that farmers have written to him saying that they would like to know when the provisions of this Bill are going to become operative, but there has been no enthusiastic voice from the general body of organised farmers welcoming the provisions of this Bill. That is why I feel that the Amendment we are now putting forward is one which ought to receive support, because it will remove one of our main objections to this Measure. I observed that, after the Second Reading, the Council of Agriculture for Scotland debated whether they should ask the Government to apply the provisions of the Bill to agriculture in Scotland, and, after a somewhat heated debate, by a majority of 14 to four, they prayed that the provisions of the Bill should not be made applicable to Scotland. When I see how the two parts of the Bill will work together, I cannot fail to appreciate the wisdom and sound sense of the farmers expressed through the Council of Agriculture for Scotland.
What are the facts? The hon. Member for Stone said earlier in the Debate on this Amendment that the farmer really does not want to purchase his land, but that what he wants to do is to be able to continue on sound lines of farming tenancy. That is probably quite true, and, if it be the case, I cannot for the life of me understand what is the great objection to a policy of nationalising the land, because I cannot find any evidence that the nation, in its ownership of Crown land up to the present, has proved itself to be a bad landlord; in fact, all the evidence that I have had from Crown tenants is that they are very well satisfied with the conditions under which they farm their land. Moreover, as I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), the same applies very largely to the conditions of
farming tenancy under the county-councils. But the strong point that I want to make is this: Hon. Members opposite have told us again and again, when we have been debating the question of the tenancy of privately owned land or the tenancy of Crown or nationalised land, that in the past the landlord has never been able to obtain more than a net result of from 2 to 2½ per cent. upon the capital value of his land which is let for farming, and I see that the Noble Lord opposite (Marquess of Titchfield), who comes of a fairly ancient stock of landowners, agrees cordially with that remark. If all the change that is to be made under this Clause of the Bill is to enable farmers to buy their land and to farm it under conditions different from those at present obtaining, when it is claimed that the landowner only gets a net return of 2 to 2½ per cent., how can it be argued that the farmer is going to benefit? What is going to happen?
The farmer is going undoubtedly, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), to be pressed more and more to buy land. When the landowner is faced with the opportunity of this Bill, and will be able to say to his farmer tenants, "You are now able to obtain a certain amount of credit," estates will come more and more into the market and farmers will have to buy. And on what terms? First of all, they will only be able to obtain 66⅔ per cent. of the value appraised by the Land Corporation, and they will have to find the other 33⅓ per cent. In respect of the advance of two-thirds, they will have to pay, including the small sinking fund provision, round about 5¾ per cent. That is on two-thirds of the capital required to buy their holding, and, in addition to that, they will have to raise, before they can get that advance from the Corporation, the remaining one-third from their own resources or from supplementary sources. If they have, as will be the case with the great majority of those who are forced to buy their holdings, to raise that one-third at interest from some other source, they will not get it at 5¾ per cent. If the rate fixed for the advance of two-thirds be as high as 5c¾ per cent., and they have to raise the other third from other sources, they will have to pay anything from 6½ to 7½ per cent. for the rest of their capital, and, even if they are
able to put up £500 or £1,000 of their own capital on a holding of 100 to 200 acres, and then have to borrow a part of the remaining one-third of the value of the holding, what will be the position? They will then have to do what the landlord has done for them in the past, namely, provide all the improvements and the capital required for developing the holding generally, and they will have to borrow for that purpose also. They will have to borrow under the second part of the scheme, and they will have to go to the banks.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Does the hon. Member contemplate the raising of the one-third on a second mortgage charge, or would he not consider, from his very wide experience, that co-operation was the only way in which that could be done?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am all in favour of the co-operative system, but at present I am criticising a Bill which contains this paragraph which we are seeking to delete. If the Bill were one setting up a co-operative system of credit with anything approaching enterprising methods, I should strongly support it. We have never argued on these benches against a sound system of co-operative credit for use in agriculture, but that is not what is going to happen under this Bill. We asked permission of Mr. Speaker to-day to get incorporated in the Bill a Clause which would give the Minister power to make regulations, but we were ruled out of order. We have to deal with the facts as they will operate under the Clause, and I do not believe that as the result of the passing of this Bill any farmer will be better off: on the contrary, I believe he will be much worse off than he is at the present time. He certainly will not be able to get the capital that he gets now, under certain conditions, from the landlord at a really low rate of interest. In other words, where there has been a good landlord, the provision and improvement of buildings has been done at such comparatively low rates that the farmer will not be able to do it at those rates under a scheme of this kind. Account must also be taken of the fact that he will then require working capital for stocking his farm, for carrying him over from the point where he begins to raise his produce until he can dispose of it on the market, that he will have to
give the banks a charge upon his growing produce, his stock, or whatever he has raised on his holding, and that he will then be bound hand and foot as he never has been before, as a result of the passing of this Bill with these two things interlocked as they are bound to be. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) made a very severe criticism upon the Bill. I do not agree very often with his views as to how agriculture should be organised and given remedial treatment, but I am bound to say that there is not a word that he has uttered about the financial fallacies of this scheme with which I do not cordially agree.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I did not say a word against Part I.

Mr. ALEXANDER: But the hon. and learned Member will observe that, while I am against Part I, I agree with his view that the two parts together will be mutually destructive. If you have Part II of the Bill working, as it is going to work, through the banks, it will help to destroy much of the effect of Part I, and vice versa. As a fact, no real remedy for the position of agriculture is to be found simply by going on with this Measure and pouring out public funds with out a sound scheme of administration. If the farmer is going to be able to get his capital cheaply, if he is going to be able to get his working capital in such a way that it will be kept free for his use in the very beet way for the development of his holding, I can see no remedy for him at present without the first step of bringing the land under public control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) was a little caustic about that during his speech, and I can quite understand that, for I remember him saying, in the early days of this controversy, how he felt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was rushing into a policy of land nationalisation in the new Liberal policy. If, however, this matter is to be dealt with from the point of view of giving the farmer reasonable conditions in his tenancy, I can see no remedy at all except the State becoming the landlord and, while helping the farmer to cultivate, securing also that there is proper cultivation
by the tenant. The other point that I want to make is that, with regard to working capital, there is no really sound scheme except a good development of co-operative trading, but the Government, apparently, will not take any advice upon this and bring it in. I have here an extract from the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture in India, in which the Commissioners say:
We have no hesitation in recording our belief that the greatest hope for the salvation of the rural masses from the crushing burden of debt rests in the growth and spread of a healthy, well organised co-operative movement, based upon the careful education and systematic training of the villagers themselves. Apart altogether from the question of debt, co-operative credit provides the only satisfactory means of financing agriculture on sound lines.
If the Royal Commission has formed that conclusion in regard to agriculture in India, although of course I agree that the actual circumstances vary very much, I think it is equally applicable to this country. After all, if the farmer will not help himself in regard to co-operative credit, he cannot be saved. One of the difficulties in this country has been to get the farmer to stand sufficiently upon his own feet in his local community and agree to act co-operatively, I believe that until, by education and propaganda he can be got to act on those lines, there can be no sound scheme of financing agriculture But there would be some hope of getting the farmer to agree in that if the initial step could be taken that we propose, that is to say, if, instead of going in for a large extension of occupying ownership, the land were regarded as the property of the nation. The land is there for the purpose of providing food for the people, and that food ought to be produced on the best and most economic basis by the cultivation of the land to the highest and best extent by tenants who are tenants of the Crown, if you like, or the nation, whether the Crown be named as the landlord or not. If these two things can be provided—namely, in the first place, reasonable security for the good farmer as a tenant under the State, and, secondly, a proper mobilisation of the product of agriculture so that it can be used as a basis for co-operative credit—that will provide some reasonable solution for the problems of agriculture. To pretend that it can be done in the way that this Clause proposes, by advancing
money on mortgage through this corporation, is only playing with the business, and is no remedy at all.

Mr. KELLY: We heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) of the enthusiasm of the farmers for this Measure, but I noticed that when he sent for information he was careful not to send the whole Bill to the farmers, and particularly did he leave out this portion. He sent them the last page of the Bill, showing the date when it was expected that the Act would come into operation.
The enthusiasm of the farmers is due to the fact that they believe that there is something more in the Bill than the Bill contains——

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot enter into a discussion of the general scheme of agriculture. I would remind the hon. Member that this is the Report stage, and that we must confine ourselves to the actual Amendments.

Mr. KELLY: I hope I shall adhere to your ruling. The Amendment upon which I am attempting to speak is the one to leave out paragraph (a), which deals with the making of loans on mortgages on agricultural land, and we believe that it is not to the advantage of agriculture that this money should now be devoted to the purchase of land, thus burdening

the farmers with the enormous cost of providing interest for the period of years that is stated in another part of the Measure. I am perfectly convinced, from what I know of some agricultural districts, that the people there are not aware of the position created by this paragraph. Many of them are not only under the impression that these proposals relate to the making of loans on mortgages on agricultural land, but they are hoping for assistance in the other direction, and, if these proposals could be so applied as to enable loans to be made and credits to be granted for the purpose of assisting agriculture, I think it would be all to the good. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), in referring to what he thought was in the mind of the Mover and the Seconder, took advantage of something they had not said. I would certainly prefer, rather than burdening these people with a seeming ownership by means of these facilities, that they should be the tenants of land owned by the State. I hope for the sake of agriculture that this Amendment will be carried and that, instead of assisting the landowners, we may assist agriculture.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 116.

Division No. 272.]
AYES.
[6.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cope, Major Sir William


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Albery, Irving James
Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Alexander, E. E. (Layton)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Apsley, Lord
Buchan, John
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bullock, Captain M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Atholl, Duchess of
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Balniel, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Carver, Major W. H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cassels, J. D.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Beckett, Sir Garvase (Leeds, N.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dixey, A. C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Drewe, C.


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Berry, Sir George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bethel, A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chapman, Sir S.
Ellis, R. G.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Charteris, Brigadier-General I.
England, Colonel A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Christie, J. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Clarry, Reginald George
Fade, Sir Bertram A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Brass, Captain W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fielden, E. B.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Forrest, W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Briggs, J. Harold
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Frece, Sir Walter de


Briscoe, Richard George
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lougher, Lewis
Sandon, Lord


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gates, Percy
Lumley, L. R.
Savery, S. S.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Gower, Sir Robert
MacIntyre, Ian
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Grace, John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Grant, Sir J. A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Skelton, A. N.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smithers, Waldron


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Captain D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hamilton, Sir George
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Storry-Deans, R.


Harland, A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Strauss, E. A.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Haslam, Henry C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Templeton, W. P.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hills, Major John Waller
Nuttall, Ellis
Tinne, J. A.


Hilton, Cecil
Oakley, T.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Waddington, R.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Owen, Major G.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Penny, Frederick George
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hume, Sir G. H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Preston, William
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hurd, Percy A.
Radford, E. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark
Raine, Sir Walter
Wells, S. R.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ramsden, E.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wiggins, William Martin


Iveagh, Countess of
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rentoul, G. S.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Jephcott, A. R.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ropner, Major L.
Withers, John James


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lamb, J. Q.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Womersley, W. J.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rye, F. G.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sandeman, N. Stewart



Long, Major Eric
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Looker, Herbert William
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Captain Viscount Curzon and Major




The Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, G. H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Day, Harry
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Ammon, Charles George
Dennison, R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, J. P.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gibbins, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gillett, George M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Barnes, A.
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barr, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kelly, W. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Greenall, T.
Kennedy, T.


Briant, Frank
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kirkwood, D.


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, George


Bromfield, William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawrence, Susan


Bromley, J.
Groves, T.
Lee, F.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grundy, T. W.
Lindley, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lowth, T.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William


Cluse, W. S.
Hardie, George D.
Mackinder, W.


Compton, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
MacLaren, Andrew


Connolly, M.
Hayes, John Henry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)




March, S.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Montague, Frederick
Shinwell, E.
Viant, S. P.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mosley, Oswald
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Murnin, H.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Naylor, T. E.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Welsh, J. C.


Oliver, George Harold
Smillie, Robert
Westwood, J.


Palin, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Paling, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snell, Harry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Potts, John S.
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Purcell, A. A.
Sullivan, Joseph
Windsor, Walter


Riley, Ben
Sutton, J. E.
Wright, W.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)



Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thurtle, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Scrymgeour, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charles


Sexton, James
Townend, A. E.
 Edwards.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) the making of loans to persons to be nominated by county councils for the pur-post of promoting pig, calf, and foal clubs.
The House is probably aware of the nature of these clubs. They are really small mutual insurance agencies. They are nearly always confined to agricultural labourers and their wives and people in the same state of life who keep a pig for the purpose of feeding their families. As the loss of a pig would fall very heavily on the families, it is natural that they should be keen on banding together for the purpose of avoiding loss. If there have not been great losses, these mutual assistance societies are perfectly successful. There are similar societies for the purposes of foal clubs, and I understand in the North of England they have calf clubs, though that is not so general in the district from which I come. The starting of these societies is attended with considerable difficulty. If they start successfully, in a good year, they probably amass a considerable amount of money in subscriptions. I was hoping this Bill would give assistance to individual village societies, with a view to enabling them to start new clubs. Although conditions are fairly successful they are not nearly as numerous as they ought to be. The suggestion I put forward is that loans should be made under county council arrangements to suitable persons.
I am not very much enamoured of bringing in the county councils. I should be quite satisfied if parish or rural district councils had it in hand, but I see considerable difficulty in arranging to lend Government money to the individuals who at present are acting as treasurers in the villages, and for that
reason I suggest county councils. The system of short-term credits will not be entirely suitable for this method because it will not be at all a suitable scheme to withdraw the money annually. What is wanted is a scheme whereby the money is lent during the life of the society, until it is wound up, when it would come back to the Government, or in this case the bank or the corporation that lends it. I can see the difficulty of fixing on the person the county council would employ to supervise this scheme, but they have started a kind of rural community council with a secretary, and he is the man who goes round the country and keeps in touch with urban life, and I certainly think he would be a suitable person.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: I need hardly say that, like my hon. and gallant Friend, I have every sympathy with the object of helping these very useful clubs, but I do not think that Part I of the Bill is a suitable place in which to make this provision. The financing of a pig club is clearly more suitable for the local banks in the form of an agricultural charge or debenture, as in the case of industrial provident societies, than for the central mortgage corporation, which is concerned with long-term credits. These clubs do very useful work. They are not altogether easy to start, because they need a great deal of energy on the part of the secretaries and officials, and obviously, from experience which we have had in certain districts—I know that in Lincolnshire my hon. Friend has had experience—they are objects which should certainly be encouraged. There is provision already under Part II
for the necessary credits. If a pig club registers itself under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, as it well can, it will come under Clause 14 and be able to negotiate with the bank for credit on the basis of a debenture as there provided. Therefore, though I fully sympathise with the object of my hon. and gallant Friend in bringing this question forward, I do not see that it is necessary to make any special provision, and it certainly is not a suitable matter to be dealt with under Part I of the Bill.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I most unfortunately voted in favour of the last Amendment, and I intended to support the proposal of the Bill. I had the misfortune to get into the wrong Lobby. I am strongly in favour of the advantages which are provided under this scheme, and I do not see why a pig club should not be given the advantage which my

hon. and gallant Friend opposite wants to secure. Therefore, if he divides the House, I shall certainly support him.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. The difficulty is that these clubs have to register themselves, and can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the cost of registration?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid I cannot give any idea as to the cost of registration, but I understand that it is not a very heavy charge. I do not think that it ought to be beyond the powers of a pig club to find the necessary expenditure.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 244.

Division No. 273.]
AYES.
[6.51 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, E. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


England, Colonel A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Forrest, W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mosley, Oswald
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben
Major Sir Archibald Sinclair and


Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
 Mr. Ernest Brown.


Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Albery, Irving James
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gates, Percy
Penny, Frederick George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Apsley, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Grace, John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Atholl, Duchess of
Grant, Sir J. A.
Preston, William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Radford, E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Raine, Sir Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ramsden, E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reid D. D. (County Down)


Berry, Sir George
Hamilton, Sir George
Remer, J. R.


Bethel, A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rentoul, G. S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harland, A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rye, F. G.


Brass, Captain W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, Samuel (W'dswerth, Putney)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hilton, Cecil
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Briscoe, Richard George
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Buchan, John
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smithers, Waldron


Carver, Major W. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cassels, J. D.
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Christie, J. A.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Templeton, W. P.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Clarry, Reginald George
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Long, Major Eric
Tinne, J. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Looker, Herbert William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lougher, Lewis
Waddington, R.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Maclntyre, Ian
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cope, Major Sir William
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Couper, J. B.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dixey, A. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Withers, John James


Drewe, C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wolmer, Viscount


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ellis, R. G.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Flelden, E. B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Captain Viscount Curzon and Major


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nuttall, Ellis
The Marquess of Titchfield.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Oakley, T.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out paragraph (ii).
7.0 p.m.
The House will observe that paragraph (ii) deals with the pledge which, apparently, the Minister was forced to make to the banks to constitute the loan corporation by a payment of £10,000 per annum for 10 years as a contribution towards the cost of the administration of the company. We submit that this provision in the Bill is really quite indefensible. If there was any grant required at all for the administration of the company, surely it ought to have been an annual grant, which could have been revised from year to year if the accounts of the corporation showed the grant was actually necessary. When you come to review the whole of the provisions of the Clause, it appears that this sum of £10,000 per annum, which is to be given as a free gift to the banks who will be the shareholders of the corporation, is really quite unjustifiable. Will the House please observe what this really means? Under the general finance of the scheme, the Minister has been forced to pledge himself or the Government that the Government will put up out of public funds within three years a sum equal to the total share capital subscribed of £650,000. It may go even up to £750,000 if the corporation actually proceeds to that capitalisation, but it must be £650,000 within three years. That £650,000 is to be completely free of interest for 60 years. In effect, therefore, the Government will be making a gift to the land corporation of somewhere in the nature of from £2,000,000 to £2,250,000 by way of interest over the 60 years. In addition to that, the Government are undertaking to underwrite at a cost of £62,500 the debentures to be issued by the land corporation. On top of that, they are undertaking to come to the help of the debenture issues at any time when they are on the market by promising to subscribe up to a maximum of £1,250,000.
I cannot help thinking that there is not a Member of the House who has any experience of finance at all who would not say, on examination of the accumulative effect of these financial provisions, that this Bill really is a bankers' protection Bill. They have got the best of the Minister on every point on which he tried to get them to meet him. I can see him
almost cowering in a corner under the compelling influence of these capitalists of the great banks who are saying, "Unless you agree to this condition and to that condition, you may go and hang for all the help you will get in the agricultural credit scheme that you desire." The last straw in regard to this scheme is the proposal to give them £10,000 per annum as a free gift for 10 years, one year after the other. The more I look at this scheme, the more I think it is likely to be completely futile from the point of view of agriculture. There is no doubt that if it is worked to any extent, it will be very good from the point of view of the banks. The banks, it is true, are going to limit the interest they may enjoy on their share holdings in the land corporation to 5 per cent., but it is a very useful thing for the banks to have a certain 5 per cent. on £650,000 in this land corporation, and, in the event of any liquidation, to have that backed up by a free reserve, free of any interest charges, provided by the State. That is a very good thing, but why on top of that you should give them £10,000 per annum for administration expenses I cannot possibly imagine. I think the Minister ought now, after what we have said upstairs and upon the Second Reading, to be able to tell the House why it is necessary, in addition to all the other financial provisions of the Bill, to give the banks this £10,000 a year.
He is going to back their share capital with a reserve, he has promised to underwrite the debentures, and he has undertaken in the Bill to subscribe up to £1,250,000 of debentures if at any time they look like being a bit rocky on the market—I take it that is the main reason why you are making this promise—and why, in these circumstances, is it necessary to put up £10,000 per annum for administrative expenses? I could understand it better, of course, if, as a result of these various grants, the agriculturists were going to get a really low rate of interest on the loans. That is not so. The rate of interest, including a small charge for sinking fund, is round about 5⅝ to 5¾ per cent. Is that really a low rate? Is it a rate which is really justifiable when you are going to spend public money up to £2,500,000 as a subsidy?
We have had no justification at all for this grant from the Government. It indi-
cates how completely they are in the grip of the banks in this matter. It only remains for me to say that I am persuaded that if they had really wanted to get money upon a basis like this with the aid of public credit, they could have got better terms from other banking institutions than, apparently, have been conceded by the Big Five, minus one. I asked the Minister in Committee—but I got no answer to the question—whether or not the Government had actually made any overtures in this matter to anybody else besides the Big Five. I wonder if he will answer that question to-night. It was not answered on previous occasions. Did he approach the issuing houses or any of the other credit houses in the City? Were the results of the conversations in that direction, if any, unfavourable? Has he been to any other banks besides the four banks who are to become shareholders in the proposed land corporation? I should like to know, because I am quite certain that, having regard to the other three provisions to which I have referred—a reserve of £650,000 free of interest for 60 years, a promise to underwrite debentures to the amount of £62,500, and a promise to come in with subscriptions up to £1,250,000 at any time the Minister can be persuaded by the land corporation that the state of the quotation of the debentures is such that they want a little strengthening—having regard to these three things, there ought to be no justification for the free grant of £10,000 per annum for 10 years. If all these things, cumulatively, could have been offered to other financial houses than the four banks which are to be the shareholders of this land corporation, I am persuaded that it might have been possible to get better terms elsewhere for the loans to farmers on their land purchases.
It is not possible within the terms of the Amendment to have a wider discussion about this point, but I suppose I have said enough to convince Members on all sides of the House of the position of the Minister. He is really the victim of the big banks in this country. He had about three years of hard labour in trying to give birth to this scheme, and all that he has been able to introduce is, apparently, what I described on the Second Reading as a bankers' protection Bill, in which the banks are to be
put in a completely impregnable position with the assistance of credits from public funds. I hope, therefore, first, that the Minister will give us some explanation along the lines I have indicated, and, secondly, that the House will not accept the retention of these words in the Bill. If they are to remain in the Bill, then we ought to have a complete statement of accounts, year by year, from the Corporation laid before this House to show whether the whole or part of the £10,000 per annum is really required.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has said that the right hon. Gentleman was a victim of the banks. I want rather to put it the other way. I think the nation is the victim of the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that the past 2½ years and more of negotiation have at least gone to prove that private enterprise, boasted of so frequently, has proved infinitely stronger than the nation. The right hon. Gentleman, first, was unable to provide a scheme of credits without the banks, and, secondly, he found himself so weak that the banks were always able to overcome any opposition that he put up. This scheme has been under consideration at least since early in 1926. In the King's Speech of 1926 there was a reference, saying that the Government were considering a scheme for agricultural credits. We find that in 1928 they have been able to produce a scheme, but during the whole of these 2½ years the banks have held up the right hon. Gentleman, and, in spite of all the questions and influence and pressure that Parliament has brought to bear, he has been unable until very recently to produce a scheme. Now we find a scheme has been produced on terms that have been laid down by the four banks who are participating in this land corporation scheme. My hon. Friend referred to the various financial gifts and advances that are to be made before this corporation can be set up, and if ever there was a scheme which indicated the weakness of private enterprise in any form it seems to me that this is the scheme.
The agricultural industry are in difficulties because private land ownership is failing to supply the necessary credit.
They come to the Government for a nationalised credit scheme. The Government of the day, being Conservative and refusing to believe in the nation as a whole, then referred the scheme to another body of private enterprise people, as expressed through the various banks. The banks themselves said, as private enterprise always does, "Yes, we are prepared to provide the service at a price." They laid down a price. First, the Government must provide £750,000 for 60 years free of interest. That was their first condition. Then the Government must undertake to underwrite the debentures at another cost of £62,500. Then the banks say to the right hon. Gentleman, "Even that is not enough. You must provide £10,000 per annum for ten years for administrative purposes, or we do not undertake the scheme." That is a pure gift from the taxpayers to these banking organisations, or they will not undertake the scheme at all. Then the right hon. Gentleman comes along and declares that if the corporation so fails to organise their business efficiently, or for any reason they make a bad bargain here or there, and the debentures begin to fall, then again the State can add to the funds at the disposal of the Corporation.
It seems to me that while the right hon. Gentleman may have been confronted by very formidable opponents he must be ready and willing to confess that private enterprise, whether it be the banks or any other section of the community, is only prepared to render a national service as long as the nation is willing to guarantee them a profit, and as long as the nation is prepared to provide the price. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) said, during his remarks on the last Amendment but one, when referring to the question of land ownership, that the one thing he was sure about was that nobody wanted to nationalise the land. It may have been true, but he did not advance any arguments in favour of that statement. I suppose that now he will be ready to tell us that the one thing that the nation would not tolerate for a moment would be the nationalisation of the land. So long as the nation is willing to leave them with sufficient power to exploit it, at any rate the bankers do
not want nationalisation of the banks. If the only service that the four banks can render to the State and to agriculture is at such a price as is embodied in this Bill, it would seem that the nation could do at least as well for itself as the banks are doing for the nation or agriculture.
The financial gifts and promises and arrangements, and the guarantees to this Corporation, excluding this £10,000 per annum for 10 years, ought to be sufficient to induce the banks to come to the assistance of agriculture and to co-operate with the State. On financial grounds it is grossly immoral that we should provide £10,000 a year for 10 years. On moral grounds the bankers ought never to ask for it. The profits that they have made over a large number of years, and are continuing to make, warrant every Member of the House in calling upon them to show a better example. On no conceivable grounds can the right hon. Gentleman justify this gift, unless, as before, he talks about owner-occupiers growing up into Tories and uses any other argument that does not affect the point. It is the honest belief of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the more owner-occupiers there are the more Tories there are.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will not attempt to ride off on some irrelevant side issue, but will justify the demands of the bankers and justify his strength or weakness when he was confronted by a section of people connected with private enterprise who were called upon to assist in a national problem. It seems to me that the various gifts made to this Corporation should be sufficient without the £10,000 for 10 years. Because of that fact, and because of the knowledge that the present Government have played such an active part in other industries, in which they have destroyed the livelihood of tens of thousands of men and deprived the women and children of that without which they cannot have a civilised life, I cannot allow a proposal of this description to pass without a protest. The reply given to a question to-day indicates that as a result of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government one county alone is losing this year £6,900,000 in wages.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has no bearing whatever on the subject now before the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept your Ruling. My point was, of course, that while as a result of the Government's action the livelihood of tens of thousands of people in one industry has been destroyed, there is no justification whatever for the Government giving tens of thousands, and indeed millions of pounds to a branch of private enterprise whose object is to make profit rather than to render any service.

Mr. GUINNESS: Hon. Members opposite have suggested that the banks have forced a nefarious bargain with the Government in connection with Part I of the scheme. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) asked whether, when we saw that the banks were asking for terms which in his opinion were excessive, we approached other financial houses and considered alternatives. Of course, before we went into the scheme at all, we considered all alternatives, and we came to the conclusion that the bodies who were in by far the best position to organise and carry out a scheme of this kind, with whatever Government assistance was necessary, were the Clearing House banks. They have a great organisation; they are in touch with the agricultural industry throughout the country by means of their branches; and if they could not help us nobody else could—nobody else could do the work as cheaply or as efficiently as they could. Therefore, though we naturally considered all alternatives, even the alternative of hon. Members opposite—a State scheme—we turned them down in the initial stage in favour of a scheme run by the Clearing House banks. We approached the Bankers' Clearing House, and, as the hon. Member quite rightly said, we had long and very anxious discussions. The representatives of the banks who met me on certain occasions did not force this scheme upon me, but they convinced me that unless we gave adequate support to the scheme it would be no use.
Even with this adequate support, the hon. Member for Hillsborough says, the scheme is going to be so costly to the borrower that he does not think it is worth while. Clearly, without that support, without using for the scheme the machinery of the banks, the coat to the
borrower would be very much higher. The scheme on any basis other than through the medium of the Bankers' Clearing House would, on the hon. Gentleman's own argument, be put absolutely out of court because of the expense to the borrower. From the first we have had to find a solution for this problem of providing this long-term accommodation at a lower rate of interest than the farmers' normal banking channels are now offering. We had to strengthen the new corporation in which the great banks will take part.
I want to answer the suggestion that this scheme is a scheme for the protection and enrichment of the banks. It is nothing of the kind. In the Articles of Association, as provided in Clause 2, we have to provide for restricting to 5 per cent. the dividends on the share capital of the company, and the participating banks have agreed that in the case of this initial capital, which is going to be put up pari passu with the Government's advance, up to £750,000, the dividend will be non-cumulative. The whole of the benefit of this scheme, therefore, goes to the borrower. What we have in effect done is to arrange for the banks to build a canal through which credits shall flow for certain agricultural purposes. We are going to make a fixed payment for the building of that canal, irrespective of the volume of credit which will flow down it. Whatever success the scheme has over and above this 5 per cent. non-cumulative, goes straight to the advantage of the borrower. Of course, it is a complicated scheme. The particular point raised in this Amendment is only one part of it. We have framed our assistance to meet the necessities of the banks. Of course the largest form of assistance is the guarantee fund. The benefit of that fund will go to the farmer in relieving him of the necessity to build up reserves and thereby reducing the rate of interest which he will have to pay. If he did not have this guarantee fund he would perhaps have to find an extra one-quarter per cent. for building up reserves. That is a long-term necessity. But this £10,000 a year is a temporary necessity.
It is obvious that the administrative cost of the new organisation will be far higher in the earlier years. It will be necessary to employ an experienced and
well qualified staff, and until the business attains a certain volume the overhead charges must bulk unduly in the expenses. We want to relieve the borrowers of the necessity of financing this organisation beyond the normal burden which all customers of the corporation will expect to bear. We believe that it is better for the State to find this administrative contribution in the form of an annual payment, than to increase the heavy capital assistance which we are providing in the form of advances. The suggestion has been made that the banks have been greedy or have forced upon us an unconscionable bargain. Yet the directors have undertaken to work without remuneration. I do not know whether it would be to the interests of the banks that that system should continue for ever, but at all events in the first instance it has been arranged with them that they shall do this work for nothing. That is a very strong answer to the suggestion that the banks have forced upon the State an unfavourable bargain.
I have gone into this scheme, and after careful examination I am satisfied not that the banks would not run the scheme even if it was doomed to failure but that if we had not afforded this considerable Government support, concentrated especially in the early and struggling years, the cost of borrowing would be so high that it would be of little advantage to the farmers. This particular Amendment deals with only one part of our financial scheme, but it is an important provision. It lubricates the machinery during the period of starting, and I want the House to realise that it is part of a well balanced and carefully considered whole, and if we cut it out and offer terms less favourable to the farmer we should inevitably have to give up the scheme.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Minister of Agriculture has said quite truly that the banks not only did not initiate this scheme but that they have shown great reluctance to come into it. One of the reasons why he was not able to make an announcement earlier was that they saw a great many difficulties which had to be overcome, and when the discussions had been exhausted there still remained one bank, and that the largest of the Joint Stock Banks, outside the scheme alto-
gether. There is nothing to be made by the banks out of it; there is no doubt about that. They have to provide assistance from their organisation; they will have to make available to the corporation a vast amount of detailed knowledge, without which you cannot work a scheme of this kind, and I presume they will have to provide officials and directors with an amount of personal knowledge of the people who are likely to avail themselves of these provisions. The banks were ready to do what they could to help the scheme forward, but they do not pretend to be in the position of Ministers or of Members of this House. Many of them had their private opinion as to its utility. Some of them thought it would not do any good, some that it was a direct disadvantage to the farmers, and others that there was more good in the scheme than appeared on the surface.
It was in that rather tepid way that they came into the scheme. The Government asked for their co-operation, and I am glad that the banks have shown a spirit of co-operation which has led to their taking part in it. But having done that, let us see how the Government have proceeded. They have given a number of guarantees to the corporation, and are providing for advances to be made to the corporation which were not demanded by the corporation, or those who are likely to form the corporation. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman came to the matter of expenses. I think it is only right that the House should realise that £10,000 will certainly not cover the expenses. It will fall a great deal short. You cannot work a staff and house a corporation on the scale which the Government have in mind at anything like £10,000. It is really a subscription in relief. I think the right hon. Gentleman has put this sum forward in an indiscreet form. He could give assistance to the farmers more easily than by making a present of £10,000 a year to the corporation. It would have been better for him to have made a direct grant for a reduction of interest. I hope he will not think it unseemly if I say that if I had been in his place I should never have consented to it appearing on the balance sheet in this form. I should have taken care that it appeared in the form of a reduction of interest which the corporation will be able to charge to those to whom it makes advances. He has chosen the wrong way of
doing it, and I shall have pleasure in voting for the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in effect we have not achieved what we want. We have given this £10,000; will it not mean that it will cheapen borrowing?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that is the object of making the advance, but I repeat that there are better ways of making a contribution than by making it in a £10,000 lump sum grant towards the expenses of the corporation, and it is because I think it is an indiscreet and unnecessary way of doing it that I shall vote against it. We do not know anything about the rate of interest to be charged; we can only make an estimate. The right hon. Gentleman's estimate is 5¾ per cent.——

Mr. GUINNESS: Including Sinking Fund.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, and if the right hon. Gentleman could have reduced that by ½ per cent., it would have been more attractive to the farmers. He will never get the farmers to believe that the £10,000 really goes in a reduction of their interest if they are to be charged 5¾ per cent. They will think that much too high. The view taken by the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench will be the view taken by the farmers.

Mr. ROY WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that £10,000 a year will go some way in reduction of interest?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: By itself it will not go very far, but we must take it in conjunction with all the other financial guarantees which are given to the corporation. It is not a simple matter. It would have been far better to have attacked the subject of interest directly rather than indirectly.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The point that appeals to me is that this £10,000 is a fixed sum per annum, whether the scheme takes on or not; whether the farmers embrace it or not. The whole of the money that is to be available cannot exceed £750,000; it may be a much smaller sum.

Mr. ROY WILSON: The hon. Member is losing sight of the fact that it is not £750,000 which is going to be used alone, but a much larger sum, which will be
obtained on bonds. Seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds will go absolutely nowhere.

Mr. GRENFELL: There will be something behind that, but it is the amount of money to be advanced by the company, and the expenses are put at 1½ per cent. whatever amount of capital they may raise. The Minister has said that it is not the banks which have imposed this nefarious scheme upon him, but that in the interviews they had with him they convinced him that the scheme would not work unless he accepted their terms. That is saying the same thing in a much nicer way. The banks are to float this corporation, and lend the money, and they have dictated their terms, because there is nobody else with whom the right hon. Gentleman can negotiate. They have convinced him that nothing can be done without their help. If that is not imposing their scheme upon him, I should like to know what is. The scheme, according to the right hon. Gentleman, has not been put forward for the enrichment of the banks. At any rate it is not a scheme for the enrichment of the farmers who will be called upon to pay higher rates of interest than they have paid up to the present time. There are very few farmers who cannot get; all the capital they require at 5 per cent. and 5¼ per cent., and I cannot see how this scheme with a minimum of 5⅗ per cent. or 5¾ per cent. is going to enrich the farmers.
This is simply a scheme to subsidise the banks, who will be able to impose their scheme upon the agricultural community. It would have been much better if the Government had paid a small contribution to the banks to help the farmers to build up a system which would have given them all the advantages of financing their own undertakings, enable them to buy their land and premises, and give them directly all the advantages of control over finance. Any advantage from this £10,000 a year to the banks, with no guarantee that the interest will be reduced, will not go to the farmer, and cannot go to the farmer. It may be that 20 or 30 years hence a small percentage may trickle down to the farmer, but in the meantime he has no prospect but; to mortgage his land and buildings and equipment at the minimum rate of, interest of 5¾ per cent. The Minister has described the scheme as a canal through
which credit will flow to the farmers in all parts of the country. He has used several metaphors in order to describe his Bill. He has described it as a canal, and also as a lubricant; very fanciful and very poetic. A canal is usually built to carry boats, and this canal, this scheme, will be used by the banks of this country in order to launch their own enterprises, and carry their own goods. They will be able to impose their will upon the agricultural industry of this country.
It is not pleasant to see the Minister of Agriculture helping the banks of this country to impose their will upon the agricultural industry, giving them priority of claim on the products of the farm and a chance to exploit the farmers of this country for generations to come. It is a bad Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman should not help it forward by giving this £10,000. The farmers will get nothing. The landlord may get something; but the agricultural workers will certainly get nothing. The Government are foisting on the country a system from which the agricultural industry will not disentangle itself for many years to come solely for the sake of finding credit for the farming industry of this country.

Mr. KELLY: I do not want to give a silent vote on this question. I should like to say a few things which I had not the opportunity to say on the Committee stage. I accept the statement of the Minister that the banks did not seek for this particular task and that it was imposed upon them by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. He stated that he desired that they should help to build a canal which would serve as a channel through which this money should flow to the farming community. He might have told us that in this instance he was really giving to the banks an opportunity to retain their hold upon the finances which make them so powerful. It would have been far better had the right hon. Gentleman kept this thing in his own hands, instead of handing it over to the banks. When he pressed them to undertake the task he found that he must make a contribution not of £10,000 simply for one year but of £10,000 a year for 10 years. Although the banks may not put any of this money into their pockets, and the interest is limited to 5 per cent., and that not cumulatively, the handing over of
this sum of money and the making of this donation or subscription of £10,000 for the administration of the fund is not fair to the agricultural community or to the interests of this country. I shall have no hesitation in voting for the Amendment.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I want to look at this matter from the point of view of the farmer. I agree with the Minister of Agriculture that Part I of the Bill will be of benefit to the farmers to the extent that it will provide for them money which will not be liable to be called in. That is a great point in favour of this part of the Bill. I ask myself on what terms this money will be available, but I have not yet heard of a figure which, in my judgment, will commend itself to the farmers as being a low rate of interest. In view of the amount of public money which is being provided for this scheme, it ought to have been possible to provide money at a cheaper rate of interest. We have been told that one of the large banks is standing outside the scheme. Should I be in order in asking the Minister whether the bank which is standing outside the scheme is willing to advance money on the same terms that will be available under this scheme, without the help of the Government? If so, then the Government have provided as much money as they ought to provide, without this special £10,000 a year. On these grounds, I shall support the Amendment that the grant be not made.

Mr. BUXTON: The House has heard cogent arguments against the bargain with the Corporation, as it stands, but one side of the subject has not been touched upon. This country is not the first country that has entered upon this sphere of State legislation for agricultural credits; indeed, it is one of the last. There is a tremendous volume of experience and precedent in the same field. It is remarkable that the assistance that is given in this country under this scheme, with our higher forms of development in banking, should be so much more generous and lavish on the part of the State than is the case in less developed countries, and yet such is the case. The item which we have selected for Debate is only one of many items. There are certainly four large items of benefactions to the Corporation.
There are such piled up benefactions that even some of the supporters of the Minister in Committee were disposed to dwell on the amount of help given to the Corporation. It has to be noted that on the Continent, in Germany, for instance, it was decided on the one hand that the State itself should do the lending and should not regard it as a bad form of business requiring such sacrifice on the part of the taxpayer. The German Mortgage Credit Bank, with State capital, has served the purpose in a large field. When you come to the non-State banking, you have what is called the Landschaft, a huge method of dealing with land mortgage in Germany, and they have no subsidy at all, so far as I understand.
The Minister was approaching a form of business which was not necessarily a losing form of business that required a subsidy but a business which in proper hands, well managed, is a paying business, and one which is being conducted on a great scale by insurance companies and others. Assuming that the Minister required to get the interest of the banks and that the banks were not willing parties and had to be induced to come in, then, of course, the Minister had to get them in as cheaply as possible. Was it not rather surprising for the right hon.

Gentleman to make an announcement that a bargain would be struck with the banks, before it had been completed? In these negotiations, from the Treasury point of view, it should not have been forgotten, in the interests of fairness to the taxpayers, that the strictest bargains should have been made. The four banks have to put up £650,000 in shares, but the shares are so fortified that they are really turned into a first class security, equal to a consol. Surely, on the face of it, that is not a very successful bargain to have made. The Minister spoke in Committee of the advice which the banks gave him as to the necessity of such and such a point. I thought it was a strange term to use when a business bargain was being driven. When one is making a, contract one hardly speaks of the advice which the other party tenders in connection with the contract. The long and short of it seems to me to be that the Government have a fixed preference for private enterprise rather than for State action and, in consequence, a very high price has to be paid.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 115.

Division No. 274.]
AYES.
[7.56 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Finburgh, S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Carver, Major W. H.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cassels, J. D.
Forrest, W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Chapman, Sir S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis [...]


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Christie, J. A.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Apsley, Lord
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gaibraith, J. F. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clarry, Reginald George
Gates, Percy


Balniel, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gower, Sir Robert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Grant, Sir J. A.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Berry, Sir George
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bethel, A.
Couper, J. B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bevan, S. J.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hanbury, C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harland, A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brass, Captain W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Dixey, A. C.
Haslam, Henry C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Drewe, C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hills, Major John Waller


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ellis, R. G.
Hilton, Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Buchan, John
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Bullock, Captain M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Burman, J. B.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fielden, E. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Skelton, A. N.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smithers, Waldron


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Ay Inner
Nuttall, Ellis
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hurd, Percy A.
Oakley, T.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Jephcott, A. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Templeton, W. P.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Lamb, J. Q.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Preston, William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Long, Major Eric
Radford, E. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lougher, Lewis
Raine, Sir Waiter
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Pamsden, E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Lumley, L. R.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Remer, J. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


MacIntyre, Ian
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Watts, Sir Thomas


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rye, F. G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Margesson, Captain D.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Meller, R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wolmer, Viscount


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Womersley, W. J.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandon, Lord
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Moore, Sir Newton J.
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Major Sir William Cope and Mr. Penny.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Strauss, E. A.


Bromley, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton, Hugh
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Riley, Ben



Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to company.)

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after the word "Treasury," to
insert the words "and another shall be a person nominated by the Minister."
This Clause of the Bill sets out that provision shall be made in the Memorandum and Articles of the company for a certain directorate. We endeavoured, during the earlier stages of the Bill, to find out what the number of directors would be, but even in the negotiations between the banks and the Ministry nothing has yet been set down as to the number of directors. While that number is as yet unknown, the Minister has agreed that the Government will be satisfied if they secure one director to represent them on the Board. I submit that that is unfair to the Government and also unfair to the individual who will be sent to represent the Government on the directorate and who will be alone in putting forward the views of the Government regarding this scheme. In justice to those who are subscribing £10,000 a year towards the administration of the company, there should be, at least, two directors representing the Government. I tried in Committee to secure that a majority of the directorate would be appointed by the Government, but that proposal did not find favour. We are now putting forward the much more modest request that in addition to one director nominated by the Treasury there should be another nominated by the Minister. I hope the good sense of the House will appreciate the necessity for the proposal.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
It was understood in Committee that the probable amount of share capital which would be subscribed to this company would only be some £660,000. The State on its part puts in £750,000 which remains at the service of the company for at least 60 years without any interest whatever to the State. That, of course, is not the only money which the State is risking in this enterprise. The State also undertakes to take up in debentures, for the first five years, £1,250,000, so that from the outset in this company the State will have at stake at least £2,000,000, while as I have said, the company will probably only have some £660,000. In face of those circumstances it seems utterly unwise to consent to the participation of the State in the work of a company composed in that way, unless the State has a voice in the direction of the affairs
of the company. In the Bill as it stands the only direct voice which the State will have will be by the appointment of a representative of the Treasury.
We have not been told yet how many directors are to form the directorate of the company, but it is assumed that the number will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of eight. This Amendment makes the modest suggestion that, in addition to the representative of the Treasury, provided for by the Clause, the Minister should also appoint a representative. We submit the Amendment on broad grounds of public policy. The creation of this corporation is for a specific national purpose. It is to give some kind of State stimulus and encouragement to the development of the agricultural industry. If this corporation is to fulfil the purpose for which it is being created, surely it is of the highest importance that there should be close touch between its work and the work of the Ministry which is responsible to Parliament for agriculture. From the point of view of the risk taken by the State in the subscription of capital, and from the point of view of the purposes of the Bill as a whole, the least the Ministry ought to do is to see that there is direct liaison between the Ministry and the corporation.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) has expressed his desire—seeing that he cannot get what he really wants, which is to have a majority of the directors nominated by the Government—that provision should be made for keeping liaison between the Ministry and the corporation. We consider that one director will be quite capable of carrying out that function. The Treasury and the Ministry work together, and the normal method in these Departments is that decisions as to personnel lie with the Treasury, but naturally the director who represents the Government will be charged with seeing that the general intentions of Parliament in passing this Measure are carried out. I may perhaps tell the House what have been laid down by the Treasury as the functions of this Government director. The Government director is to remain as long as Government advances remain unpaid, which means that there will be a Government director for at least 60 years,
if not for a longer period. The Government director will be required to give careful attention to the manner in which the company's business is conducted and, having due regard to the security of the Government advances to the company, to see that those advances are utilised for the benefit of agriculture in accordance with the Act. The Government director will furnish to the Treasury from time to time such information as they may require regarding the operation of the company. No remuneration will be paid to him. I think hon. Members will see that this responsibility will cover that liaison for which they are asking, and, as we do not agree with them that control is desirable, I suggest that one director will be quite as effective as two.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: How many directors will there be altogether? Has that question been settled?

Mr. GUINNESS: No. It was proposed originally that the number should be limited, I think, to six or seven, but no final decision has yet been reached. The present state of that question is that directors cannot be paid without a change in the articles of association. Free services of directors will be provided, but as they will not be paid I really do not think that the House need worry about the number of directors representing the banks, because we do not yet know definitely how many banks will participate. At present, there are nine, but this number is not necessarily final, and obviously the number of participating directors must to some extent depend upon the number of banks. I think the object of the Government, which is to secure touch with the company, and to keep the conduct of the affairs of the company in accordance with what Parliament has in view in passing this Measure, will be just as well achieved, as I have said, by one director as by two.

Mr. GROVES: Do I understand that this money is coming out of the Exchequer?

Mr. GUINNESS: There will be no money paid to directors for their services. We provide in the articles of association that the directors will not be paid, but of course I cannot give a pledge that for
all time they will not be paid. Anyhow they cannot be paid without a change in the articles of association, and the articles of association will in the first instance at all events provide that they will not be paid.

Mr. GROVES: Nevertheless, this will be money subscribed by the public if there is a company floated. I understand that the total sum involved will be over £2,000,000, and as I was present on Friday when the Government were keenly concerned in associating themselves with running some bookmaking transactions I am concerned that the Government shall consider this Amendment to have an additional director on the company in question. I am very concerned about the suggestion of the Minister that the directors will not be paid immediately. My original question elicited a very interesting statement which I expect other hon. Members as well as myself observed. It appears that the Government are not going to bind themselves down to having directors with no salary for all time so that we can reasonably assume that if Government directors are associated with this company they will be paid.

Mr. GUINNESS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am glad he raised this point. I find that I was in error in saying that the Government director will not be paid. It is true that he will not be paid by the Corporation, but I understand the Treasury will probably pay him. He will not get any remuneration out of the resources of the Corporation. I hope the hon. Member will not misunderstand my reference to a possible change of policy in the future. What I meant to emphasise by saying that it was in the articles of association and not in the Bill was that it would be possible without statutory authority to change that provision. That however is not a change now in contemplation. The banks have undertaken that they will put it in the articles of association that directors are to be unpaid, but I want to make it plain that though the corporation will not pay the Government director, it may be that he will be paid by the Treasury.

Mr. GROVES: It is because I believe that Parliament is the guardian of the public purse that I am interested in the
position that there is probably going to be a director officially representing the Government on a certain private company that is going to deal with the administration of this money, and therefore, while I am in favour of the Amendment that we should have two directors representing the Government, my own view is that if, as the Minister has stated, the time comes when a paid director will be appointed, his money will come out of public funds, and I think the work in connection with this company should come under the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who, while not directly responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is certainly responsible by statutory right to the Consolidated Fund. I support the Amendment because I feel that if the Minister sees it in its proper light it will bring us to that particular direction that all public money expended by this House in this connection should be expended by a statutory officer who is capable of deciding exactly how such money should be spent. I have been careful to observe in this House for some years the manner in which we have been watchful that money voted by this House is used for the particular service for which it is granted. I am sure we should not agree to any sum of money, the interest on which comes to a very considerable amount, being wrongly used. Therefore, we want an additional statutory person who will see that money granted by Parliament is expended in the particular direction that Parliament decided it should be spent.

Mr. STEPHEN: It was very interesting to listen to the Minister replying on this Amendment, but, however amicable he was in his reply, I do not think even his own friends would suggest that he adduced any reasons why there should not be two directors definitely appointed by the State. I think the Mover of the Amendment was right and that we should have had a majority, but, failing a majority, I think there are many reasons which could be adduced in support at least of having more than one representative of the State, and having, say, one to represent the Treasury and one to represent the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said that he works in close consultation with the Treasury, and that this director can act as the
go-between between the Treasury and himself, but at the same time I take it that, with the agriculture of this country in tie condition in which it finds itself to-day, the Minister is a very busy individual, and the Treasury, with the tremendous schemes that have been initiated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is also possibly inclined to be working overtime. The fact that you would have one director representing the Minister and one representing the Treasury would allow both Departments, through their representatives, to discuss the various problems that they may be called upon to face in connection with the conduct of the bank.
In reply to the Amendment practically all that the Minister had to say was that he thought that one Government Director would be sufficient. I believe there is an argument that he did not use against two being appointed, and that is that those representing the State would possibly increase the cost to the State, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated that possibly the Government nominee would have to be paid. I would not have ventured into this discussion at all had not my interest been aroused by his statement, and I want to get a question answered in connection with this appointment. I want to know whether this one Director is going to have a full-time job. Is this going to be possibly an official of the Ministry who will give out of his normal time the amount of time that is necessary for this directorship? In the articles of association the other people who are to be Directors are to be without fee or reward and are to give their services free. Presumably, they cannot be going to give whole-time attention to this job, and consequently it appears to me that the House should really get to know something more with regard to the position that the single Government representative would occupy. If it is only to be part time, there can be no possible reason why there should not be a similar official from the Ministry of Agriculture. There would practically be no additional cost to the Exchequer because the official would simply go from his Ministry of Agriculture duties to his duties in connection with the corporation. I suggest also that it would have this effect. If the Minister of Agriculture was interested
in having something carried through in connection with the corporation, it would be satisfactory to have one of his own officials with the Treasury official whose knowledge would be more on the financial side than on the agricultural side. The Ministry of Agriculture director would be one whose special knowledge was along the lines of agriculture, and I take it that the Treasury director would be an expert in financial matters.
The Minister might have been a little more accommodating in connection with this Amendment. I do not suppose that the other directors, seeing that they would be in a majority, would mind the Treasury director having someone by him to hold his hand, as it were, and to give him a little encouragement and support if he thought that the other directors were not taking the right line. I am sure that the Minister, when he comes to reconsider the matter, will see that there is a real case for this addition. On my assumption that this is not a full time job, it will not cost anything additional. The fact that one of these directors was greatly interested in agriculture and the agricultural policy of the Government, and that the other one was directly interested in the financial administration, would give far more strength to the Government position on the directorate, and would in no way interfere with the other kind gentlemen who are willing to give their services for nothing in the interests of agriculture.

Mr. BUXTON: I want to add a point in special connection with the difficulties of the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to efficient administration. There is in connection with the whole of this Bill a certain danger that the corporation, and, under Part II, the banks, will not put their backs into it to the extent required. Activity on behalf of the special interests on the part of the corporation is absolutely essential for the success of the Bill. I might just give evidence of that fact from the well-known Enfield Report on the whole subject of credit, on which this Bill is based. Mr. Enfield says:
The success of the proposals.…will depend on their proper and adequate administration by the banks.…and it may be the case that on these very grounds they
will meet with some criticism from persons who have doubts as to the willingness or ability of the banks to serve the legitimate needs of agriculture.
That is a reason why the Ministry itself should be represented on the Board, and all the more because there is not only the ordinary danger of the Treasury point of view being what we are all familiar with, a rather narrow point of view, but because there is in this case necessity for active direction.

Mr. SHORT: I hope that we shall not vote on this Amendment until we have had some statement from the Minister on this important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) called attention to the position of the director who is to be appointed under the Bill, and he asked a very pertinent question as to whether this director will Be a full-time director, or whether, on the other hand, while acting as a director, he will carry on his very onerous and important duties in connection with the Treasury. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reply to that query. The Minister, in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), addressed his remarks purely to trying to show that one director would be sufficient, owing to the relationship between his own Department and the Treasury. We raised this question, however, not merely on the grounds of efficiency, but on the wider ground of public policy. Frequently, during the lifetime of this Parliament we have come to the rescue of industry in one form or another, either in the way of subsidies or credit schemes. In this case, I gather from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) that the corporation would be responsible for only £660,000, whereas the State would be involved to the extent of £2,000,000. Yet we are to have only one representative for the State.
The point of our opposition is this. The Government have decided to come to the rescue of agriculture, and their form of assistance in the main involves heavy responsibility or guarantees on the part of the State. We are not interested in the provision made in this case, but to see that the interests of the State are safeguarded. I am really amazed that we have not asked for more than one representative in addition. I should have thought that we might have gone much
further and asked for representatives, not only of the banks, the Treasury, and the Ministry of Agriculture, but for the Ministry of Labour, the agricultural workers, and the farmers. We might have tried to extend the representation in all directions, and I venture to think that the seeking of such representation would have been in order. But we have not done that. We have been too moderate. We have asked simply that the operative branch, not the financial branch, of the Ministry of Agriculture should appoint someone who understands the practical side of agriculture to see whether the money is being expended in a practical manner.
What does a Treasury official know about these practical matters? I have the greatest regard and admiration for their financial experts, lout they know little of the practical side of agriculture. They may well be able to say whether the financial manipulations are all right, but not whether the money is being wisely applied. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say "This director will be quite effective and one is enough," and to ignore the principal point made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), which was that the State and the community were guaranteeing in one form or another vast sums of money as compared with the £660,000 of the company which is involved. I would like the Solicitor-General to satisfy us upon this point. Particularly I would ask him to address himself to the question of public policy, and further to say whether this director's appointment will be a full-time job, or whether he is to be a Treasury official going in now and again to have

a look at some papers and satisfy himself as far as he can within a limited time, then going back to the Treasury to some other task. In that case his mind will never be concentrated on this work; he will be occupied with the worry and anxiety associated with financial problems, and incapable of giving concentratated attention to the question of whether the policy adopted is a wise one and in harmony with the main provisions of this Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) needs a reply, and I would ask the Solicitor-General if he will give an answer, even out of sheer courtesy.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I am quite ready to do my best to answer the questions. The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) as to whether the nominee of the Treasury will be a whole-time official is that he will not necessarily be a whole-time official. The hon. Member for Wednesday has assumed that a person nominated by the Treasury will necessarily be a Treasury official. On the contrary, although it is possible that a Treasury official may be appointed, it does not in the least necessarily follow that a Treasury official will be appointed, and I think it may be assumed that the Treasury will appoint somebody who fulfils all the requirements which have been indicated by hon. Members opposite.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 193.

Division No. 275.]
AYES.
[8.42 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cove, W. G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hirst, G. H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Ammon, Charles George
Dennison, R.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Forrest, W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gardner, J. P.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Barnes, A.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barr, J.
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Batey, Joseph
Gosling, Harry
Kelly, W. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kennedy, T.


Broad, F. A.
Greenall, T.
Kirkwood, D.


Bromfield, William
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, George


Bromley, J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Lee, F.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lindley, F. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Groves, T.
Lowth, T.


Buchanan, G.
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mackinder, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Cluse, W. S.
Hardie, George D.
March, S.


Compton, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Montague, Frederick


Morris, R. H.
Sitch, Charles H.
Viant, S. P.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Murnin, H.
Smillie, Robert
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wellock, Wilfred


Oliver, George Harold
Snell, Harry
Welsh, J. C.


Owen, Major G.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Westwood, J.


Palin, John Henry
Stephen, Campbell
Wiggins, William Martin


Paling, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Potts, John S.
Strauss, E. A.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Purcell, A. A.
Sullivan, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Riley, Ben
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Windsor, Walter


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Thurtle, Ernest
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Scrymgeour, E.
Tinker, John Joseph



Scurr, John
Tomlinson, R. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sexton, James
Townend, A. E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Albery, Irving James
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Alexander, Sir wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Gates, Percy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Apsley, Lord
Grattan Doyle, Sir N.
Nuttall, Ellis


Balniel, Lord
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oakley, T.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Berry, Sir George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pennefather, Sir John


Bevan, S. J.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Penny, Frederick George


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hamilton, Sir George
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Harland, A.
Radford, E. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ramsden, E.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Briggs, J. Harold
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major John Waller
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hilton, Cecil
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buchan, John
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rye, F. G.


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Salmon, Major I.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cassels, J. D.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Christie, J. A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Savery, S. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jephcott, A. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Cope, Major Sir William
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Long, Major Eric
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Looker, Herbert William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Lougher, Lewis
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lumley, L. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dixey, A. C.
MacIntyre, Ian
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Waddington, R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Ellis, R. G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Finburgh, S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wells, S. R.




Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Withers, John James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wolmer, Viscount
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Womersley, W. J.
Warrender.


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.



Resolution agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Agricultural charges on farming stock and assets.)

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The next Amendment marked for selection is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Tomlinson) to leave out paragraph (a).

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I notice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have overlooked an Amendment standing in my name to leave out Clause 5. I am not altogether surprised at that because Mr. Speaker did represent to me that my Amendment went to the root of this part of the Bill, but it did not occur to me to point out to Mr. Speaker that unless a Debate takes place on this Amendment, the whole of the second part of the Bill will not come before the House at all. Seeing that Part I of the Bill occupied five hours and that Part II is going to do irreparable damage to the agricultural industry, I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to consider my Amendment from that point of view.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot go back on what I have said. I believe the hon. and learned Member's point was fully discussed on the Second Reading.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Is not the object of the Report stage to deal with points which may have been overlooked in Committee and on the Second Reading.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot go back on what I have said.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I am sorry that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) is not in order because it is a great pity that the damaging criticism which the hon. and learned Member put forward during the Committee stage cannot be heard on the Floor of the House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better get on to his own Amendment.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out paragraph (a).
Of course, if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Grinstead
is out of order, the criticisms I intended to make on that Clause will also be out of order, and I shall content myself by simply asking the Minister of Agriculture if he will be good enough to look at the point raised in my Amendment, because paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) is quite unnecessary in view of the definition given in Subjection (7). Sub-section (3) provides that
The property affected by a fixed charge shall be such property forming part of the farming stock and other agricultural assets belonging to the farmer at the date of the charge as may be specified in the charge, but may include—

(a) in the case of live stock, the progeny thereof."
On turning to Sub-section (7), I find that farming stock is defined as including
live stock, including poultry and bees and the produce and progeny thereof.
In view of these facts, I think the words under paragraph (a) are unnecessary.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: I understand that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Tomlinson) does not disagree with the principle of this provision in the Bill, providing that the progeny of live stock is covered by the agricultural charge, but he merely wishes to raise the point from a drafting aspect. I think from that aspect the answer is that there is no provision for the progeny of live stock in the subsequent Sub-sections. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] The definition Clause says:
live stock, including poultry and bees and tile produce and progeny thereof.
It means the progeny of poultry and bees and not of live stock. We wish to give an option to the farmer to charge the progeny of his live stock. This is merely raised from the point of view of drafting, and I think it is necessary to retain paragraph (a) in the Bill. I am prepared to argue the merits of this proposal, but I understand that the hon. Member does not dispute the facts.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The information which the Minister has just given does not seem to me to be very clear. If the proposal in Sub-section (7) applies only to poultry and bees, it seems to me
that the better method to adopt would be to wipe out paragraph (a) and extend the definition Clause.

Mr. MORRIS: The point that really seems to be raised by this Amendment is that in the first part of Sub-section (3) it is stated that:
The property affected by a fixed charge shall be such property forming part of the farming stock and other agricultural assets.…
and so on, and items in paragraph (a) may or may not be included in that farming stock. They are not necessarily so included, although they may be subject to a charge. In the definition of farming stock in Sub-section (7), however, poultry, bees and the produce and progeny thereof are included. Paragraph (a), therefore, appears to be inconsistent with this definition of farming stock and with the provisions that are going to apply to it under Sub-section (3).

Mr. GUINNESS: The definition in Sub-section (7) does not merely cover the assets which may be the subject of a fixed charge. I think there are provisions regarding livestock in other portions of the Bill.

Mr. MORRIS: The property affected by these charges forms part of the farming stock. The farming stock which is subject to charge may or may not include livestock, but farming stock is defined in Sub-section (7), and livestock is included in that definition, so that, although it may be excluded from the subject of charge under paragraph (a), it would still be included in the definition.

Mr. GUINNESS: I can see that some rather tangled questions may arise on this matter of drafting, and I think the wisest thing for me to do would be to undertake to consider it between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place. If it be found that there is any confusion in the form of the Bill as it stands, I will undertake to have it put right in another place, so that the House will have an opportunity of considering it again in an Amendment from another place.

Mr. TOMLINSON: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 7.—(Effect of floating charge.)

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 13, after the word "sale," to insert the words "in respect of other agricultural assets."
This is really only a drafting Amendment. We have provided for the charging of other agricultural assets, and it will be necessary to provide that, when they are sold, the proceeds shall be paid into the bank with the proceeds of any other sale.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I do not think that we can get too firm an assurance on this point. This matter was raised more than once in Committee, and I should like now to know definitely whether these words only apply to those assets which are defined as "other agricultural assets" in Sub-section (7) of Clause 5. Do I understand that the words now inserted will cover only these "other agricultural assets" which are there defined as meaning a tenant's right to compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, for improvements, damage by game, disturbance or otherwise, and any other tenant right?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, that is so. We provide specifically for the proceeds of sale under a policy of insurance or by way of compensation, and we also wish to provide in addition for the proceeds of "other agricultural assets" as defined in Sub-section (7) of Clause 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that it shall not be necessary for a farmer to comply with such obligations if and so far as the amount so received is expended by him in the purchase of farming stock which on purchase becomes subject to the charge.
9.0 p.m.
This Amendment arises out of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) that it ought to be possible for a farmer, when selling assets that are subject to a charge, to purchase other assets which would become the subject of the floating charge, so that the credit would be a revolving one. I think it is perfectly reasonable that it should be so chargeable in case both the bank and its customer thereto agree.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I am obliged to the Minister for meeting us on this point. The Amendment will make the matter much clearer, but I hope it is understood that, while the Minister has met us on this one point, it is essential, in the interests of the farmer, if he is to get the right to arrange with the bank, that the memorandum should be issued which was referred to in Committee, and which will make it clear to the farmer that he has the right to make certain direct arrangements with the bank outside the general provisions of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Registration of agricultural charges.)

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 28, after the word "bank," to insert the words, "in relation to the making of further advances under the charge."
This is a re-enactment of Section 94 of the Law of Property Act, and it really only affects the bank and the validity of a second charge in relation to a first charge. In Sub-section (2) of Clause 8 we have laid down the priority of charges, and we have to provide that, where a bank has taken a charge to cover an overdraft, that charge should cease to be valid for any further advance if the bank has received special notice of a second charge or the second charge had been registered before the bank last searched the register. The object of this Amendment is to make the position absolutely clear.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Restriction on publication of agricultural charges.)

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
My object is to secure that these charges, if made, shall be made openly. If it be right—and, as the Bill now stands, it is—that a man should give charges on his stock-in-trade and other farm assets, it should be open to anyone who is going to deal with him to know that he has given such charges, so that he may not, by representing that he is in possession of assets that are free when in fact they are not, obtain further credit, leaving the creditors to whistle for their money when they find all the assets charged to one person.
Perhaps I may state shortly what this part of the Bill does. It enables a farmer to give either a fixed or a floating charge—and these are the same in principle, because a floating charge ultimately becomes a fixed charge—on, firstly, his stock-in-trade, which includes his livestock, his implements, and all moveable chattels about the farm; and, secondly, on his tenant right, that is to say, any claim that he may have for compensation on any growing crops that he may have, to secure any debt, whether past or future. But the only person to whom the charge can be given is the bank. An earlier Clause provides that these agricultural charges shall not be deemed to be bills of sale, though they are in fact bills of sale, and that the registration shall take place at a most unsuitable place, at the Land Charges Office somewhere in London, of which no one in the country except solicitors ever heard.
The Clause to which I take exception provides that the list of charges and the names of the persons who have given them shall not be published. The Minister says, though I think it may possibly be open to argument, that this will not prevent the trade societies getting a list of the names of persons who have given these charges and passing them on to their customers. I go so far as to say that the Minister by this Bill is putting the farmers in the position of trading dishonestly and into a position against which every trader in the country rose in revolt at the beginning of 1880.
It is important that the House should know what exactly is the position in all commercial transactions of every sort or kind. Until 1878, the mortgage, or transfer, of chattels by deed was perfectly valid even though it was secret, but the trading community very soon ascertained that, as soon as a man became bankrupt, or made a composition of his debts, or had a judgment against him and an execution put in, he was met by a document which transferred his assets, either absolutely or by way of mortgage, to one, or possibly two, preferred creditors. The whole of the creditors who have given credit to the trader, who was apparently carrying on a large business, with his premises full of stock and apparently prosperous and
getting credit by the representation that he was carrying on business with these assets, found one creditor sweeping the lot, and they were all left outside. The whole trading community rose in revolt against this and demanded protection. The Act of 1878, which only dealt with absolute bills of sale, made the conveyance of an absolute bill of sale void as against an accepted creditor unless it was registered, so far as the goods remained in possession of the grantor of the bill of sale. That was followed in 1882 by the Bills of Sale Act, which dealt with conditional bills of sale, and produced exactly the same result, that transfer by way of mortgage was void if made secretly and if it was not registered so that everyone should know about it. To carry this principle out, the bankruptcy law is assimilated to it, and the law to-day is that all chattels found in the possession of a bankrupt, or which have been in his possession within three months of the date of the bankruptcy, are held to be divisible among the property of the bankrupt so long as they remain in his possession, carrying out this one principle, which is essential to all fair dealing, that a man shall not carry on a trade and represent that assets are his when he has in fact charged them to someone else by a secret document.
This Bill provides that a farmer henceforth shall be in this position, at any time to charge to a bank all the chattels, all the stock-in-trade and other assets on the premises, although he has not paid for any of them and although he has creditors—corn dealers, cattle dealers, merchants and private debtors who have lent him money. When they come to enforce their debts, they find a preferred creditor who is going to sweep the lot. If the House was full of commercial people, there is no one who would not rise up against this provision that our Conservative Minister is forcing through the House. I use strong language about this. I speak as a tenant farmer of 40 years experience who is fully acquainted with the way the business of farming is carried on, and I state here to the House, in the presence of any Farmers' Union representative who may be here, that the effect of passing this Bill will be to do irreparable damage to the industry, because it will lessen the credit the farmer gets in all directions. I beg of
the House to say that if this experiment is to be tried the thing shall be above board, and, if the farmer is to have this power of charging his assets in this way, it shall be done openly and as the Bills of Sale Act requires.
Why do I say it is going to do this serious damage? Who will give credit to the farmer after the Bill passes? Who can? Every farmer, whether he gives this bill of sale—because they are bills of sale—whether he gives this agricultural charge or not, will be treated as though he had, because, although it is true that the registration of the charges may enable some traders who belong to trade protection societies to ascertain whether a charge has been given up to that time, there is nothing to prevent the farmer within a day or two afterwards giving such a charge to the bank, including the very goods he is getting on credit. But what about the people with whom the business of farming is done? Not one of them has ever heard of the Lands Charges Registry in London, and, if he has how can he act on it? I go into the market and want to buy 20 head of cattle. There is a dealer there to sell them to me. Transactions take place on the spur of the moment. A man has given credit for £200 for 20 cattle many times before. Is he going to do it now? How can he do it with any regard for himself? The cattle dealer knows the cattle have to be grazed and will not be saleable for six months.
The corn dealer and the seed merchant are in the same position. I am not suggesting that they will stop credit, because farmers are very honest people. In this country traders give credit under all conditions. The hopeless spendthrift can get credit, but he has to pay 50, 60 and 80 per cent. interest. Even a Russian can get credit from this country to-day. In Russia you have no means of enforcing your debt at all, and it is less than even money that you will not get paid. The invariable result must be, if you maintain the secret charge that this Bill provides, that the terms of credit, with all the risks the merchants and traders have to undergo, will be increased and made much more costly. The dealers and the merchants will be running this very serious extra risk, and they will have to increase their prices in order to compensate them for losses which they must sometimes make. Any-
body who has been in this industry will know that nearly all the young people who start are financed and enabled to take up their holdings through money loaned to them either by their parents or relations for the most part. If a man is taking a larger farm and has not quite sufficient capital with which to make a start, some friend, possibly some commercial friend with whom he has dealt, will finance him, because he knows that he is of good character. He also knows that if misfortune comes upon the farmer, causing him to become bankrupt or to compound his creditors, he will share with the rest of the creditors on even terms. How can a man lend £1,000 to a man who is stocking his farm, whether a parent or anybody else, when at any moment he may find himself up against a secret charge by the bank upon every penny the farmer possesses?
There is another case of great injury which I can see to be possible. It is the constant practice in the farming business for a farmer to sell a haystack. He receives payment first, but the haystack is left on his property by the person who has bought it. What about that? Who is going to entrust any farmer under those conditions with the care of a haystack when there is a floating charge for everything the farmer possesses? There is another constant contract that is made in order to enable farmers to grow sugar beet. The sugar factories will advance money for the crop which is to be grown. How can they do that now? The crop remains the property of the farmer, the floating charge covers it, and the bank steps in and sweeps away the lot. Another practice quite common in the farming industry is that in which the seed merchants, particularly the pedigree seed merchants, will send seed to a farmer to grow on terms that provide for the crop to be sold to the seed merchant. Can that transaction take place after this Bill has passed? The crop, while it is growing, remains the property of the farmer. It is covered by the floating charge, the secret charge which is given to the bank. I think I have said sufficient to show to the House that the damage that will be done to the credit of the farmer will be enormous.
There is another point that appeals to me, though perhaps it may not appeal to some hon. Members opposite. This
Bill enables the farmer to charge his tenant right and his growing crop. As a lawyer, I tell the Minister that the charge on the growing crops will raise all sorts of complications with mortgagees. The charge of the tenant right is going to be another way of damaging the credit of the farmer. Tenant right only accrues at the expiration of a tenancy. If you are bankrupt in the middle of your tenancy, you lose your tenant right for all practical purposes, unless trustees carry on the farm. At the end of the tenancy all the adjustments between landlord and tenant take place. The arrears of rent that are owing are set off against the tenant right, because the landlord is directly responsible for the tenant right to the farmer. The tenant right, therefore, is an extra security to the landlord. Many and many a rent is loft over in order to suit the state of the tenant's farm. The tenant may have had a bad year or a bad harvest. The landlord knows that the tenant is solvent, or, at any rate, he knows that when the adjustment of accounts comes to be made at the expiration of the tenancy, there is the tenant right to be considered. The landlord, along with other creditors the farmer may have, will have to put on the screw after this Bill has passed. He will not be in a position to give these advantages. Does this House really believe that the banks will ever advance anything to a farmer on a bill-of-sale? This matter will be left in the main to bank managers in small villages and country towns who have no authority, and who have to satisfy their directors in London. Do you think that any substantial credit is ever going to be given to any farmer under these conditions? Is there anything that is likely to compensate the farmer for the withdrawal of credit by all these creditors? To my mind there will be nothing of which to speak.
Has the House any idea of the extent of the credit which farmers have at the present time? It is very difficult to ascertain. What I do know is, that there are about 31,000,000 acres of land in cultivation, that is, arable and good grazing. You may take £10 an acre for stocking the land—that is £310,000,000 of capital. There are 14,000,000 or 15,000,000 acres of what is called rough grazing, but I leave those out of account. I know that there are 400,000 farmers in this country, and within a considerable distance of my
home I do not know one farmer who has not got credit on a very extensive scale. I know many farmers—not within reach of my home, because they are small farms where I live—who have been financed in order to start business with sums up to £2,000 or £3,000. I know many of them who owe very large amounts. There are merchants who have large sums, ranging from £20,000 to £100,000, out on credit to finance farmers. It has always been said that the farmer turns over his capital once a year. I do not think that is accurate. I do not think he does it as often as that. I should say the produce of British farms is about £250,000,000 to £300,000,000. I have heard the credit of farmers put at £100,000,000. I do not know, but I am certain from my own knowledge that it is a very large amount of credit which the farmers now get from all their friends, relations, dealers and traders all over the country. Are we going to stop all this for what is to be financed by the banks?
I have proved that we are going to do irreparable damage, and the Minister is going into this with a levity which I regret. He will say that some of the traders' associations have agreed to it. Since first I heard that statement, I have tried hard to find any trader who has agreed to it. I cannot imagine any trader agreeing to it. I cannot understand why he should agree to it, because it must prejudice the position of traders and put them in a worse position. The only way this can be remedied in a very great measure is by withdrawing this prohibition against publication from the Bill, so that, if this experiment is tried, it shall be tried openly and above board, and so that the farmer shall not be put in a position to get secret credit by giving this secret charge. Lastly, I would ask the Minister if he can give any real reason why he is enabling the farmer to pretend that he has not given a secret charge. It is perfectly absurd to suggest that anybody in our country districts and villages can go to London and investigate these charges. If they could, why should not the ordinary publication, which has hitherto taken place operate?

Mr. WITHERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I represent in this Debate the Law Society who have considered this matter
at very great length and have come to the conclusion that this particular Clause would be a very great mistake. One does not want to go as far as to say that the whole scheme of the agricultural charge was wrong. That is not my purpose. My purpose is to say that the idea of making this charge practically a secret one is wrong for two reasons. First of all, it goes back on the whole system of the Bills of Sale Acts, which the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has so lucidly explained and which got rid of so many cases of fraudulent bankruptcy. Secondly, it is wrong because it will not only not increase facilities for credit but will undoubtedly restrict it. As the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead pointed out, a farmer goes into a market and wants to buy £200 worth of stock. The man he is dealing with does not know whether he has not given a charge on every asset that he has got and, though he appears a perfectly prosperous person, has in reality got nothing whatever. What is he to do under this Bill? He cannot refer to a publication in the ordinary way like a bill of sale, but he has got to send somebody up to London or make an inquiry direct himself, and so he must say to the wretched farmer, "No, my dear man, I am very sorry I cannot let you have this. I am going to London next week and will inquire or I will write to a friend in London and get a report." The position is ridiculous.
The Minister said the register was open to everyone's inspection and the only limitation on the publication of what is in the register was that contained in Clause 10 which in no way affected the right of trade organisations, by means of their trade circulars to notify their members of charges made by farmers with whom they might be in trade relations. But see what the Clause says:
It shall not be lawful to print for publication or publish any list of agricultural charges or of the names of farmers who have created agricultural charges.
Then it goes on to say that persons will be punished for so doing and concludes with the words:
For the purpose of tins Section, 'publication' means the issue of copies to the public, and 'publish' has a corresponding meaning.
He would be a very rash lawyer who would tell a trade society that they could
print a list of people who had given these charges and circulate them to their members. It would be a very nice point of law, but I do not see why anybody who takes ordinary precautions in trade should be put in such great danger of being prosecuted for doing so. "Publication" has a very curious meaning. It has been held that, if you write a manuscript libel on a Member of this House and put it in a manuscript book in the Library so that some Member may take it down and read it, that is publication. I do not know what authority the Minister has for making his statement. I treated it with great respect but, with great deference, I think there may be a great deal of doubt about it. In those circumstances I unhesitatingly support the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) directed his criticism strictly to the merits of Clause 10, but the Mover of the Amendment went much further and made it clear that his real object was to destroy the machinery of Part II altogether, and, as he had been deprived of his opportunity on Clause 5, he thought the widening of publication under Clause 10 might, to a great extent, achieve his object. I agree. I think that if Clause 10 were not included in the Bill and if there were the widest publication and pillorying in the local Press of those who adopt this new method of credit by means of an agricultural charge, the operation of this system would be brought to nothing. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) suggests that these agricultural charges are, in fact, bills of sale, and that by enabling the farmer to enjoy these facilities we shall be putting him into the position of a fraudulent debtor. I suggest that the position under these proposals will be entirely different from that which existed prior to the passing of the Bills of Sales Act. It is really a mis-statement of the case to argue that we are going back to that position.
First of all, these charges can only be given to banks. It is not a question of charges being given to many different people, which I understand was the practice prior to the passing of the Bills of Sales Act. These charges can be given to one or at most two banks. If a charge
is given to a second bank we are assured that the first bank will stop down any further advances under the prior charge. The second distinction between the proposed agricultural charge and a bill of sale is that in our proposed scheme the ownership of the property charged will remain with the farmer. The Bill provides the machinery whereby, when the sale of property charged takes place, the proceeds shall be paid into the bank unless there is an agreement to the contrary. That is different from the procedure under the Bills of Sales Act. Perhaps I am not putting the matter in proper legal phraseology, but the ownership, I understand, is in that case transferred to the person who accepts the bill of sale. There is a third very considerable distinction, though this is only a temporary distinction, and that is the provision of Clause 12, that until 1931 none of these charges will be enforceable as against other liabilities except as far as cash has actually been advanced.
The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for East Grinstead has fears lest these provisions will restrict the credit of the farmer. He is also of opinion that it will be unfair to the trader. My hon. and learned Friend thinks that the proposals will be so unsatisfactory to the trader that the trader will be driven to restrict the credit of the farmer. We quite appreciate that there is going to be a certain difficulty during the period of transition, but we hope that the Clause will mitigate that very largely. The fears of the hon. and learned Baronet are not shared either by farmers or merchants, according to the evidence at my disposal. The hon. and learned Baronet is, of course, entitled to speak with authority for agriculture from a certain point of view, but I have to consider those who speak for the organisations that represent both agriculture and the merchant, and I am bound to attach more importance to these organisations than to expressions of opinion from any individuals, however well eqiupped they may be to speak from their own experience. Therefore, I am bound to draw the attention of the House to this conflict of authority, but in no way in depreciation of my hon. and learned Friend.
As to the danger of doing injury to the farmers, we have the opinion of the National Farmers' Union. My hon. and
learned Friend wrote a letter to the "Times" criticising these details, and this was replied to on behalf of the National Farmers' Union by Mr. Bobbins. My object is not to deal with the criticisms in detail, but simply to say, on this conflict of authority, that we have the Farmers' Union on our side. As to the trading community, the hon. and learned Baronet said that prior to the Bills of Sales Act they rose in revolt against the then existing system, and he suggested that they will not acquiesce in the continuance of the accommodation now extended to farmers if the existing system is changed. The hon. and learned Baronet says he cannot find any merchant who is happy about these proposals. There, again, I am bound to consider the expression of opinion of the organised bodies representing these merchants. We consulted the more important of them. I have here a letter from Mr. Herbert Smith, who is a gentleman learned in the law and who represents the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants, and the Association of Agricultural Engineers and Implement Dealers. He writes:
On the assumption that hanks will use their powers under the Bill in the spirit outlined by Mr. McKenna at the Ministry of Agriculture, the merchants will welcome the Bill because (a) they as merchants will have no reason to refuse to continue granting credit to such of their customers as seek it from them; (b) the banks having more extensive yet simple and economical means of securing future advances, will undoubtedly provide additional facilities; (c) to the extent that farmers avail themselves of these facilities the merchants will be relieved of what is to-day and has been on other occasions a financial anxiety.
Now I come to Clauses 9 and 10.
In particular, the merchants say that Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill dealing with the matter of the registration of charges and restriction on publication are just. They should be neither extended nor curtailed.
If the merchants who are the most important creditors of the farmers take the view that the provisions of Clause 10 should neither be extended nor curtailed surely that should be enough for the House.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: What is the date of that letter?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not sure of the date, but I can fix it in this way. It was
the day on which we adjourned until the afternoon and failed to keep a quorum in Standing Committee. Mr. Herbert Smith brought that statement to me that afternoon. That is the opinion of the representative of the merchants, who is also a lawyer, and should go far to reassure the House.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Will the Minister kindly explain the object of secrecy. I should have thought the more information there was the better.

Mr. GUINNESS: The whole object of these provisions, which was discussed at the tripartite conference, was to prevent the undue pillorying of the farmer in his locality. It was felt that that was very undesirable. The merchants prefer to simplify their business by not having to borrow money from the banks for the farmers but to let the farmers borrow the money from the banks for themselves. If anybody is able to publish a list of the farmers who have asked the banks for charges, it may prejudice the success of the scheme. All that the merchants ask for is that they should be in a position to measure the credit of their customers. They can do it in two ways. First, through their trade association. I do not like to express any opinion on a legal point as against that of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers), but I am advised that this restriction on publication will not in any way interfere with a trade association sending a circular to its members regarding these charges. I am advised that it only prevents publication to all and sundry. That would be one of the means open to the merchants to obtain information as to these charges, but I do not for a moment believe that it will be the normal method. The much more usual method will be to ask the banks for a reference.

Mr. ALEXANDER: If the interpretation of Clause 10 is that there will be no objection to a trade association circularising its members with a complete list of farmers who have given the banks a charge, what is to be gained by farmers under the Clause? The farmer will go on getting supplies from the merchants, and if the merchant is going to be duly informed by his association that the farmer has given a charge what is the use of having the Clause in the Bill at all?

Mr. GUINNESS: There, again, I must be guided by the opinion of those who are affected. The farmers thought it was necessary, and the merchants did not think it interfered with their legitimate right to information. They discussed it in detail and the farmers saw a big distinction between this limited power of circularising the members of a trade association and broadcast publication in the "London Gazette." Frankly, I have based my decision on the advice which these two interested parties gave, and the fact that these charges can only be taken by the banks will enable the merchant to have recourse to the banks for information. They could not do that under conditions prior to the passage of the Bills of Sales Act, because there was no way of getting the information. Although I recognise the right of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead to speak with authority as to the law in this matter, I must be guided by the agreement of the two parties primarily interested.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I really cannot agree with the Mover of this Amendment. He is a Jeremiah. At the present time, if a farmer gives a bill of sale on any of his effects it is known to his creditors. In the second place, is it not the fact that 95 per cent. of the farmers of this country are honest men? Thirdly, is it not the case that the floating charges amongst farmers in this country would probably not amount to 20 per cent.? I was asked to attend a meeting last Saturday in Canterbury, where I had to meet a number of auctioneers and valuers and farmers to discuss this very question, and I certainly agree that I had a very hot three hours but, in the end, the majority were in agreement with the Bill. The only people who differed were the auctioneers, not all of them, and their opinion was—it was also the opinion of the corn dealers—that as far as the big merchants were concerned they would not mind, but where the farmers might suffer would be at the hands of the seller of materials, seeds, cakes and machines in the small villages and towns. That was not the objection to the Bill amongst the farmers themselves so much as to the fact that the local bank manager would have the power to give or withhold a loan, either a fixed or floating loan.
I suggested to the meeting, and it met with general approval, that I should place before the Minister the suggestion that, in regard to loans, both floating and fixed, a consultative committee should be appointed, consisting of three auctioneers and valuers, one farmer, appointed by the National Farmers' Union, and a bank manager, who should act as chairman. Otherwise, the farmers stated, and I think they were quite right, that they would be in no better position as regards the granting of loans than they were before. No one knows better the financial position of the farmer than the auctioneer and valuer in the district. Everyone connected with farming knows that the auctioneer and valuer not only knows the outer life of the farmer but the inner life, what he is worth and his moral as well as his other character. I am confident that if the Minister would suggest to the corporation that a consultative committee should be set up consisting of three auctioneers and valuers, one farmer and one bank manager, as chairman, that a great many of the objections which the farmers have at the present time to this Bill would be removed.
I feel confident that, on the whole, the Bill will be well received by the farming community. The first part of it will be used very little, except where the farmer is compelled to purchase his farm, I was sorry that in the Committee the Minister could not accept an Amendment which was moved by an hon. Member on our side, to increase the 66⅔ per cent. to 75 per cent. If he had been able to do that. I think the object which we are all aiming at would have been achieved and we should have been able to place in the hands of the fanner a financial weapon which would have enabled him to surmount many of the difficulties when he is called upon to purchase his farm. With regard to bills of sale, they are published in a journal which very few people look at. Assuming that every transaction with the banks in regard to these charges, fixed or floating, were published as bills of sale, the creditors and the farmers in the neighbourhood would, perhaps, be no wiser, but at the same time it would arouse a considerable amount of feeling, because one farmer, naturally, does not like his neighbours to know whether he has a floating charge on his property any more than he would like his neighbours to know
whether he had a bill of sale on his furniture or to know the amount that he owed to the bank. In the interests of the farmer, in the interests of the merchant who deals with the farmer, in the interests of the auctioneers and of all the parties concerned, it would be very much better to leave the Clause as it is, and I do not think anyone, finally, will be any the worse.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: There is considerable doubt as to what will be the effect of Clause 10, Sub-section (4), which states that:
For the purposes of this Section, 'publication' means issue of copies to the public, and 'publish' has a corresponding meaning.
10.0 p.m.
It depends on what you mean by the public in a given case. You may have a trading association limited to 50 or 100 members. I have no doubt that in such a case if the matter went to Court, learned counsel defending the association might prove that 50 or 100 members did not constitute the public, but you might have a trading association with a very large membership, and it would be very difficult for learned counsel to establish the argument that in fact the public were not informed by a private circular. It is absolutely essential in view of the statement which the Minister of Agriculture has made to-night, and especially in view of the opinion which has been quoted by him and given by Mr. Smith, with whom I have had considerable consultation, that the right hon. Gentleman ought to make his pledge absolutely categorical, and that between now and the final passage of the Bill through another place, words shall be inserted in the Clause which will make it absolutely certain that a trade association shall have the right to circularise their members with information.

Mr. BROAD: I would point out the significance of Sub-section 3 of the Clause which provides that:
No prosecution for an offence under this Section shall be commenced without the consent of the Attorney-General.
That seems to me to be the safeguarding part of the Clause. Seeing that those who are litigants are entitled to have the information, there will be no difficulty
about it, but to have a widespread publication in the countryside would be a most disastrous thing, and most obnoxious. Without this Clause there is very little value in Part II of the Bill. This is not a political question, and so-long as we have the safeguard which I have quoted I think we may trust the Attorney-General to exercise proper discretion and not give sanction to a prosecution unless it was shown that it was quite a gratuitous way of getting a little stunt in the local newspaper. Those who know the countryside know full well that when the local newspaper goes into the public house or elsewhere in the place, the readers look down the items which relate to other people's affairs. This Clause will stop that sort of thing going on in the countryside. As to the restriction of credit obtained in other ways, I do not think this Clause will operate in that way, but rather the reverse. Instead of going to the one source, the bank, whose business it is to provide credits, when the farmer has to get what credit he can from everybody from whom he buys or to whom he sells, the position is difficult. Very often it means that nobody knows the position. The shopkeeper and the dealer in the country town is quite at a loss to know, and as a result the little market town is becoming a whispering gallery, everybody wanting to know how So-and-so stands. I hope that as a result of this Bill that kind of thing will be stopped.
The hon. and learned Member for East Grin stead (Sir H. Cautley) said that the farmer might sell a stack of hay which was standing on his farm, but that it would still be in his possession and the purchaser would not know whether he would be able to get possession when he wanted it. I am not learned in the law, but I take it that if a man has purchased an article which remains in my possession, I only hold it on trust and no one but the purchaser who has paid for it has a legal claim to it.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I advise the hon. Member not to rely upon that opinion.

Mr. BROAD: I will let it go at that. We ought to allow this Clause to stand, otherwise we might as well abandon Part II of the Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) has
saved me the trouble of pointing out what was one of the most cogent answers to this difficulty, namely, that any prosecution must have the sanction of the Attorney-General. Nevertheless, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is perfectly reasonable. We all mean the same thing about this Clause. There appears to be some doubt about it. My own opinion is that the words as they stand are sufficient but words shall be added before the Bill comes back from another place to make it abundantly clear that circularisation by a trade society of its members shall not be publication within the meaning of the Act.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 11.—(Frauds by farmers.)

Amendment made: In page 12, line 22, after the word "sale" insert the words "or in respect of other agricultural assets."—[Mr. Guinness.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Provisions as to agricultural societies.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 18, after the word "and" insert the words "the charge."—[Mr. Guinness.]

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. BUXTON: I wish to refer to a subject which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled could not be raised in the form of a New Clause, but which is important when we consider the Bill as a whole. I think I shall have the sympathy of the House and of the Minister, in urging that the whole field of co-operative credit ought not to be ignored, but that the Minister ought to take every possible opportunity of informing the farmers of the opportunity which they have under the Bill of forming credit associations and taking further advantage of the facilities offered by the Government. We all want to get the maximum progress out of that part of the Bill which commands general assent. It is true that we find the greatest fault with Part I, but Part II has our warm support, and indeed the method of it is advocated in the Agricultural Report of the Labour Party. It is to be noted that the system of assistance of credit, in connection with agriculture, in every part of the world where organisation exists at all, takes the co-
operative form. Even in America, where individualism is so powerful, you get both on the long-term credit side and the short-term credit side, an elaborate system of associations and societies and the Federal Reserve Bank gives special advantages to the agricultural credit corporations, and to co-operative societies of that kind in particular. In Europe the case is very much stronger. Where you have small cultivators, credit facilities, in the main, take the co-operative form.
The Minister has indicated his belief that the power to take shares in such co-operative societies is already possessed by the Ministry. That is a very important statement on which small cultivators will have to rely. Perhaps before the Bill passes through another place, the Minister will satisfy himself that the Ministry has power to take shares in co-operative societies which can be organised under the existing law. I would ask him to make quite certain that that power exists, as otherwise the machinery for co-operative credit will not be complete. In our view the Bill is very much vitiated by Part I, but of course the clearest distinction must be drawn between Part I and Part II. In foreign countries the distinction is so great that entirely different organisations deal with the two matters. In France the Credit Foncier deals with the mortgage system, and on the other hand, the Banque Agricole deals with the short-term credits which supply the co-operative societies in a highly subsidised form. We, therefore, feel cold about the Bill on account of the unfortunate elements—unfortunate from our point of view—which we have detailed this afternoon. In face of the overwhelming evidence that occupying ownership has not contributed to the improvement of agriculture, we are unable to feel any enthusiasm for the Bill as a whole. But Part II represents a system on which all must agree, especially in view of the Minister's undertaking to make clear the point raised about publicity.
The chattel mortgage is not a European but an American invention. It has become known through the Enfield Report, and it certainly appears to be a form of mortgage which satisfies the peculiar temperament and circumstances of the English farmer. It ought to be valuable because, in the first place, our farmers have been seriously hampered by the system which has prevailed up to
now, and which, I gather, the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) would like to perpetuate. I think he is almost alone in that desire. Another grave defect of the existing system, not only from the individual farmer's point of view, but generally, is that it has led to the inadequate use of the credit facilities afforded by the assets which our farmers possess. Some figures have been given, but nobody knows exactly what amount of credit is utilised, or to what extent farming assets are mobilised. We have lately learned that the output of our agricultural industry represents about £260,000,000, and the bank advances upon that, when last ascertained, were about £25,000,000. In America, bank advances upon movable agricultural stock are more like one-sixth; and, certainly, our farmers should, under the new system, be very much better supplied than they have been hitherto. We on this side have been urging strongly that means must be found to enable the farmers to get free from the grave disadvantage of owing their credit to the dealer. Therefore, while we are strongly against Part I, we see so much advantage in Part II that we do not propose to divide against the Third Reading of the Bill, and it ought to be the general hope that this diversion of agricultural credit in this country from its old channel to a new one will, in not too long a time, lead to a very great reform in our agriculture.

Mr. GILLETT: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to the need for more co-operative work among the farmers in regard to the provision of credit, but I do not blame the Minister for not having attempted in this Bill to propose anything on co-operative lines, because anyone who has had even the smallest connection with the working of that system in this country must have been filled with disappointment in regard to those societies connected with the farming world and the failure of the farmers in any way to seem to appreciate what has been done in other countries or to be willing in any way to sink their own individuality in the common cause and make the co-operative societies a real success. Therefore, while I feel that other countries have been very successful and to some
extent have provided their credit by means of the co-operative system, in this country even the small attempt that was made a few years ago when the last Conservative Government passed a small Bill dealing with the provision of credit proved a complete failure and received no measure of support when any proposals were made to farmers to follow lines which have been successful among the small farmers of Germany. But why I wished to say a word or two before this Bill passed elsewhere was that I did not feel that some of the fears that I had at the beginning had been in any way removed by the discussion to-day.
The first point which I never feel that the Minister has recognised is that the problem that we had before us was the fact that private enterprise, as represented largely by the great banks, had not, quite naturally, met the needs of the farmers for long-term credit. The explanation is quite simple, that the bankers do not want to make loans of the length required and which the Government are suggesting. Therefore, no criticism can be made in regard to the failure of the banks to meet this need, but when the Minister came face to face with the problem he, with his views, naturally turned down what has been the usual system in other countries, namely, the provision of a State bank dealing with this special need. Private enterprise has distinctly proved that it was unwilling or unable to meet this need, because I need hardly remind the House that there are one or two societies that have specially laid themselves out for providing this kind of credit, but their measure of success has been limited, either because they could not raise the necessary funds or for reasons of which I am not aware. It is obvious that in the opinion of the Minister at any rate, or he would not have brought in this Bill, the banks and these societies have not met the need.
Then the Minister could only face the problem in two ways. He could have gone in for the system followed in other countries and have had State banks to provide credit on lines that would have met the needs of the farmers, or he could have done something on the lines suggested in this Bill. The first criticism I wish to make is that why I feel the scheme may probably fail is that he has
gone to the bankers, who, as a matter of fact, do not want to nave anything to do with this kind of credit. That, we virtually understood from the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who is a director of one of the so-called "Big Five," and we heard him say to-day, what was always my opinion, that the banks did not want to deal with this matter, but that, in order to oblige the Minister, they had agreed to his proposals. What I want to suggest to the Committee is that if you want a scheme to be successful, it is better to put it in the hands of people who are really keen about it than to force it into the hands of people who are only doing it to oblige.
I cannot help thinking that as time goes on, the Minister will find that an hon. Member sitting here was justified when he informed us that he did not believe that Part I of the Bill would to any extent be of very great use, except in a few special instances. The reason that private enterprise failed was because it could not offer terms that were sufficiently attractive to the farmer, and also to the man who was going to lend his money. In other words, the farmer did not want to pay the high rate of interest which was wanted by the person who lent the money over a long period of years. That was only a natural reason why these schemes failed.
If the Minister really thinks that it is essential for the assistance of agriculture that something should be done, he should face the difficulties on what I call unscientific principles. He should make some provisions which, from a business standpoint, could not be considered sound, and give something that private enterprise could not give; and he ought to agree in some way to cover the corporation which he is starting by saying that he would agree to what was an unbusinesslike proposition in regard to the size of the loan. On the other hand, instead of making these contributions of £10,000 and other figures of that kind, he should have said at once that he knew that the corporation could not make this a success unless he came in and made a definite payment towards the interest, so that the corporation could lend at a less rate of interest than could be done on an ordinary business footing. My belief
is that the scheme will fail because the Minister has not dared to go away from what I acknowledge are sound business principles. But if he had wanted to do anything on these lines, he would have found that it was exactly the same thing as giving a subsidy to sugar beet. No one considers that that subsidy is a sound business principle, but the Government gave, it because they said that it would help for the time being. At the same time, the Minister might have said that the needs of agriculture were so great that he must indirectly give a subsidy, and if he had wanted to make this scheme a success, he would have had to do something on the lines I have suggested in order to help bring together the two sets of persons, the lender and the person who wanted the loan, who at the present time, on sound business principles, do not come together.
The only thing I want to say in regard to the second part of the Bill is that, while I agree that it may be of some use, I suggest that it is quite possible that the advantage will not be as great as the House thinks. When the banker lends money to a farmer, he does not always insist, when he agrees to an overdraft, on having a definite security. The farmer has known the banker, he has talked to the banker about his fields and his land, he has spoken about his stock, and the banker has perhaps agreed to an overdraft conscious of what the man has on his farm. To-day you are going to make it a legal arrangement by which these things can be secured for the banker. I think it is possible that in some of the loans which have been made this has been taken into consideration, perhaps consciously or unconsciously. An hon. Member sitting below the Gangway asked whether it was not possible to have a consultative committee. I think be has overlooked the fact that Part II of the Bill has nothing to do with the Corporation, dealing with ordinary banking business as it exists to-day. One could hardly ask Barclays or Lloyds or the Midland Bank when they were deciding upon an advance to a farmer to say that the decision was to rest in the hands of some outside committee.

Sir W. WAYLAND: Not in dealings in the ordinary way. The loans are lent by
the Corporation and not by the banks. The banks are only acting as agents.

Mr. GILLETT: As I understood the Minister of Agriculture, Part II of this Bill is dealing with the ordinary banks. It is not intended that these advances on stock which are being made by the banks are connected in any way with the Corporation. They are just ordinary business transactions. The hon. Member was mistaken in thinking it has anything to do with the Corporation. It is a new power which is given to the farmer when he goes to a bank. It would be quite impossible to bring in outsiders in dealings with the private banks. If there were to be interference by the Government, we should come up against a scheme which would be distasteful to hon. Members opposite. If it wishes to control things the State must take them under its own care. We cannot have the best of both worlds. We can have Socialism or we can have private enterprise, but we cannot do very much by mixing the two together. Looking at the Bill as a whole I cannot feel that any of the fears I had in the beginning have been removed. I think Part II may be of some service to farmers, but I cannot help feeling that many who are counting upon this Bill to be a great help to agriculture will find in a few years' time that it has not had any very great effect in helping to solve the problem.

Orders of the Day — PETROLEUM (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment: In page 1, leave out the Preamble.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not rather unusual to leave out the Preamble? May we have some word of explanation as to why it is left out?

Sir V. HENDERSON: Perhaps I may say for the convenience of the House that although this list of Amendments looks very formidable, only five of them are Amendments of any substance. The reason why the Preamble is being left out is that as the Bill was originally brought in it was intended to direct the attention of the House by means of the Preamble to the fact that we intended to consolidate all the Petroleum Acts. A Consolidation Bill has now been introduced in another place, and therefore this Preamble is no longer necessary.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 34 and 35 Viet. c. 105, Section 2.)

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, leave out lines 41 to 43 inclusive.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There are throughout the Bill a number of definitions. We have thought it desirable to collect all the definitions into one Clause which will be found in the list of Amendments, and therefore all these definitions have been taken out of the individual Clauses.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 4, line 27, agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Byelaws as to petroleum filling stations.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 34, after the word "preserving," insert "for the enjoyment of the public."

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment goes with an Amendment in page 4, line 36, and it is a necessary preliminary of that Amendment which is one of substance.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 36, leave out "for the enjoyment of the public" and insert:
or of any public park or pleasure promenade, or of any street or place which is of interest by reason of its picturesque character.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It was thought that when this Bill was being considered in another place that this particular Clause of the Bill might be misconstrued if it was not enlarged in the way it has been enlarged. There may be some street in some old town or some public park and neither of them may be of historic interest or places of beauty, but they are equally entitled to protection and these words provide for both those particular points.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 42, at the end insert:
and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, any such bylaws regulating the appearance of petroleum filling stations may, in particular, require compliance with such provisions as may he contained in the by-laws as to the position, design, size, colour and screening of petroleum filling stations or of any parts thereof:

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The word "appearance" really covers the word "design" and it would be better to particularise what is intended. The words which have been added avoid any misunderstanding or misconception.

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 1, at the end insert:
(i) as respects the City of London, the powers and duties conferred and imposed by this Section shall he exercised and performed by the common council of the City of London instead of by the London County Council; and
(ii) no by-laws made under this Section by the council of any county shall have effect in any borough within the county; and.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The first paragraph is a summary of an agreement with the London County Council and the other paragraph is for the convenience of drafting.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 6, line 1, agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In line 3, at the end, insert new Subsections:
( ) Where by-laws made under this Section are in force prohibiting the establishment of petroleum filling stations in any part of the area of a council, the council may, with a view to securing the removal of all such stations from that part of their area, serve upon every occupier of a petroleum filling station established therein before the date on which the by-laws came into force a notice requiring him to remove it within such period, not being less than six months after the service of the notice, as may be specified in the notice, and any such notice may be addressed to the 'Occupier' without further name or description and may be served either by delivering it or leaving in at, or by sending it by post as a registered letter to, the usual or last known place of abode of the occupier, or if his place of abode is not known, by fixing it on some conspicuous part of the petroleum filling station:
Provided that any person upon whom such a notice is served shall be entitled to recover from the council by whom it was served any expenses reasonably incurred by him in carrying out the directions contained in the notice, and shall, if he makes a claim within twelve months after the service of the notice, be entitled to recover from the council compensation for any loss sustained [...] him in direct consequence of the requirements of the notice, and any question in dispute as to whether compensation is payable under this Sub-section or as to the amount of any compensation so payable shall he determined by a single arbitrator appointed by agreement between the parties or, in default of such agreement, appointed by the Secretary of State.
( ) The occupier of any premises used or intended to be used as a petroleum filling station shall have power, notwithstanding anything in any conveyance or in any lease or other agreement, to do all such things as may he necessary for complying with the requirements of any by-law made or notice served under this Section; and where a notice has been served upon any person under this Section the council by whom the notice was served may, with his consent, do on his behalf anything necessary for complying with the requirements of the notice.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that this Amendment raises a question of privilege. The House can waive that privilege or not, as they think fit.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is really the most important Amendment which has been made——

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I think that as you, Sir, have mentioned the word "privilege," we should be glad of your guidance. I do not want to delay the proceedings, but we should be glad if we could have a word of explanation from you.

Mr. SPEAKER: If this Amendment is accepted, it might have the effect of putting a charge upon the rates; and to that extent it raises a question of privilege.

Sir V. HENDERSON: As the Bill left this House it gave no power to local authorities, where they had in a particular area exercised their power, under a by-law, of prohibiting the establishment of new petroleum filling stations, to remove existing stations from that area, and it is, of course, obvious that, so long as they had not that power, the area could never be entirely cleared of unsightly stations which, they might consider, entirely destroyed its beauty. Therefore, words have been inserted here to give the local authority power to order the removal of existing stations, on the understanding that the owner of such a station will within 12 months be entitled to claim compensation. He is allowed six months' grace from the time when the notice is served, and within the subsequent period of six months—that is to say, within 12 months in all—he may claim compensation. The House will realise that there is nothing new in this proposal, because it is already laid down in the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, where a similar provision exists. I think that it certainly strengthens the Bill, and that it was the intention of those Members who took part in the Committee stage that the Bill should, if possible, be strengthened in this way. For that reason I hope that the House will agree to this Amendment and, in the circumstances, to waive their privileges.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I only want to be quite certain about these words as they are new. The House will see that these new paragraphs which
have been proposed in another place are lengthy and somewhat complicated. They provide that the person who is ordered to clear away these particular stations is entitled
to recover from the Council compensation for any loss sustained by him in direct consequence of the requirements of the notice.
I think we all agree that such a person is entitled to claim compensation, but the words "in direct consequence of" seem to me to be somewhat novel; I do not recognise them as appearing very often in our Bills. Does that include loss of trade, goodwill, inconvenience, and so on, which might represent a considerable amount? I only want to know if the Home Office are quite satisfied that these words are so drawn that no unreasonable claims could be made on county councils or other bodies, who, if that were possible, might be deterred from a very necessary act for the improvement of the amenities of the district. If the Home Office has been advised by its expert advisers that these words are all right and leave no loophole for a form of blackmail—which is what I am afraid of—I am satisfied, and I dare say we shall all be satisfied if we can have an assurance on that point.

Sir V. HENDERSON: The wording of the Amendment has been very carefully examined.

Mr. GATES: I hope the House will agree to the suggestion that these are powers which are very much desired by members of local authorities who consider that they have cause to complain of certain filling stations, and they are quite prepared to meet any reasonable claim for compensation.

Mr. PALIN: I am prepared, and I think most local authorities would be prepared, to compensate for the removal of these unsightly and in some cases dangerous stations. I understood the Minister to assent to compensation for loss of trade, but we ought to be assured that we are not giving power to blackmail local authorities. I would enthusiastically vote for reasonable compensation but, if it means all the things the Minister appears to assent to, I am opposed to it.

Sir V. HENDERSON: The word "direct" is specially put in to safeguard the point the hon. Member has raised,
and I am advised it is pretty certain that it would avoid any possibility of blackmail. I am not aware that under the working of the Roads Improvement Act, on which this Clause is modelled, any such proposition has ever arisen.

Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 6, line 6, agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 6, line 9, at the end insert:
and if, after any person has been so convicted in respect of a contravention of any by-law made under this Section prohibiting the establishment of petroleum filling stations or in respect of a contravention of any notice served under this Section requiring the removal of any such station, the petroleum filling station is not removed within such time as the Court may allow, the council by whom the by-law was made or the notice served shall have power to do all such acts as may he necessary for the removal thereof, and any expenses so incurred by a council in removing any petroleum filling station established in contravention of any such by-law as aforesaid shall be recoverable from the person convicted summarily as a civil debt.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is consequential on the Amendment which has just been accepted by the House and it gives the usual power, as is necessary in this case, to a local authority to remove a station themselves where the owner of the station fails to do so.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 6, line 20, at the end, insert a new Sub-section:
( ) The council of any urban district shall have power to enforce within their district any by-laws in force under this Section, and any expenses incurred by a district council under this Subsection shall be defrayed as part of their general expenses.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment again raises a question of privilege by putting a charge on the rates.

Mr. MORRIS: On a point of Order. May I ask for enlightenment with regard
to the principle of privilege, because under Section 1 of the Parliament Act local taxation is expressly excluded. That Act governs the relationship existing between the two Houses. I should be glad to know how the privilege arises.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no question of the Parliament Act arising on this Amendment. It is for the House of Commons to decide whether they will waive the question of privilege or not.

Mr. MORRIS: It is true that no question of the Parliament Act arises, but local taxation was excluded by that Act.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a question for the House of Commons to decide whether it will waive the privilege.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will remember that on the discussion of the Bill here it was suggested in several quarters that the power might be exercised by urban district councils, but it was held that it would be better that the power should be retained by the county council, because it would make for greater uniformity in a matter of this kind. This Amendment has been inserted with the object to some extent of trying to meet that point of view. That is to say, we are giving urban district councils power to administer the by-laws made by the county councils. I think it is an advantage that that should be done and I hope, under the circumstances, the House will agree to it and will also agree to waive their privilege.

Mr. SPEAKER: Here again a special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 7, in line 8, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 14, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Interpretation.)

"In this Act and for the purposes of the Petroleum Acts, 1871 to 1926, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
'Amenities,' in relation to any place, includes any view of or from that place:
'Canal' and 'canal company' have respectively the same meanings as in the-Regulation of Railways Act, 1873:
'Contravention' includes, in relation to any provision, a failure to comply with that provision, and the expression 'contravene' shall be construed accordingly:
'Motor vehicles' includes all mechanically propelled vehicles intended or adapted for use on roads:
'Petroleum filling station' means any premises or place used or intended to be used by way of trade or for purposes of gain for fuelling motor vehicles with petroleum, and includes any building, advertisement, pump, or other apparatus in or used in connection with any such premises.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a new Clause in which all the definitions have been collected.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is one point with regard to motor vehicles. I do not want to appear in any way facetious about this, but the motor vehicle is not the only vehicle that proceeds on the roads. Agricultural machinery does, and we are also developing various forms of mechanical vehicles that go across country. This is only a small point, but it may be a loophole for some hideous station to be placed somewhere in order to supply farmers with spirit for their motor tractors. The second point to which I wish to draw attention is this. I am looking ahead a little. We may have one day unsightly stations erected at the top of masts for filling aeroplanes. [Laughter.] Well, I would remind the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) I tried to guard myself by saying that I did not want to appear in any way facetious. I am not at all. Twenty years ago his type of Conservative laughed at the idea of even flying, and said it was absolutely ridiculous. I thought that, perhaps, we might guard ourselves against having to enact in a Bill in the time of a Labour Government, with the Opposion and obstruction of hon. Gentlemen opposite if they can still get returned, by filling up a gap left in this Bill. I only make my remarks for the benefit of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his advisers.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I think that "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof," but I would like to point out to the hon. and gallant Member that this definition has not been amended. It has
merely been taken from Clause 3 (2), where he will see the definition, and is put with other definitions in a new Clause. While some alteration may be necessary in 20 or 15 years time, I doubt whether we are justified in making such a provision at the present time.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of 34 & 35 Viet. c. 105, Section 15, as regards Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, leave out lines 32 to 43, inclusive, and insert:
(1) Any offence may be prosecuted in a court of summary jurisdiction or on indictment and any penalty shall be recoverable on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction or on indictment, provided that no court of summary jurisdiction shall, except in the case of an offence which involves a fine for every day on which the offence occurs or continues, have power to impose a penalty exceeding fifty pounds and no court of summary jurisdiction other than the sheriff court shall have power to impose a penalty exceeding twenty pounds.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I should like to explain that the Clause in the Bill was open to this objection. It provided when the maximum penalty that could be imposed exceeded £50, the case must be tried before a Sheriff and a jury. There are many cases where fines would be more than £50, and the new Clause provides for cases to be tried in the way stated.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 11, line 36, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Minor Amendments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 11, at the end, insert:
In the paragraph of Part I of the schedule entitled 'Oil cup thermometer,' in the sub-paragraph relating to 'Immersion,' for the figure '2.25' there shall be substituted the figure '2.4.'

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a technical Amendment to simplify the making of testing apparatus.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

NAVAL PRIZE [TRANSFER OF FUND].

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 7th May.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,
That it is expedient to make provision for the winding-up of the Naval Prize Fund and the dissolution of the Tribunal established under the Naval Prize Act, 1918, and that for that purpose there should be transferred from the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer—

(a) the right to receive any sums which otherwise would be payable into the Naval Prize Fund under Part I of the Schedule to the said Act;
(b) the liability for all such costs charges, expenses, and claims as are mentioned in Part II of the said Schedule, and as would otherwise be chargeable on the Naval Prize Fund;

and that the sums required for the payment of the costs, charges, expenses, and claims, liability for which is so transferred should be charged on and be payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, and that in consideration for such transfer there should be paid out of the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer the sum of one hundred and twenty-six thousand five hundred pounds."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): A few weeks ago, when this Resolution was under the consideration of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty promised that he would look further into the details of the proposed arrangement between the Treasury and the Admiralty regarding the transfer of the Naval Prize Fund. The two Departments concerned have now examined the matter again in all its bearings and are convinced that the arrangement outlined in the Resolution before the Committee is a just and reasonable one. The opposition to the scheme, when it was discussed here before, was due in the main to la fear that the suggested financial settlement between the Naval Prize Fund and the Exchequer was a somewhat happy-go-lucky proposal for a round sum payment in respect to wholly unknown future claims. The arrangement was discussed indeed as if it were a purely speculative bargain with the chances considerably in favour of the Exchequer. One hon. Member even went so far as to say that the Admiralty was indulging in
a gamble. It was taken for granted by some other Members—I do not under stand why—that, after satisfying all the claims, the Exchequer would be left with a substantial balance.
If I can succeed to-night in making the Committee appreciate the facts of the case, any opposition there may have been to the Resolution will, I hope, be withdrawn. In the first place, as to the propriety of winding-up the Prize Fund by a financial settlement of this kind, it might be well for the Committee to know that the original suggestion came neither from the Treasury nor from the Admiralty, but from the Naval Prize Tribunal itself, which as long ago as 1925 proposed that such a settlement should be considered by the Government. Clearly, even then, the tribunal were of the opinion that the time had come when a settlement fair both to the Naval Prize Fund and the Exchequer should be arrived at. The names of the members of the tribunal should convince the Committee, I think, of the respect to which their view is entitled. They are Lord Phillimore, President, an eminent legal authority; Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, an experienced administrator and financier; and Admiral Sir Martyn Jerram, whose name is well known to and highly respected by all naval men. So far from the two Departments being disposed to run hastily into a bargain in 1924, both the Admiralty and the Treasury thought that there were still so many claims outstanding and so much uncertainty about several of them, that it was not possible then to negotiate for a settlement between the Naval Prize Fund and the Exchequer. The matter therefore was not proceeded with.
To day, however, the situation is very different. Many claims have been disposed of during the last three years, and the situation has also been considerably cleared by an agreement which has been arrived at between ourselves and the United States of America, by which both Governments have undertaken not to give diplomatic support to more claims by their nationals. It can now be said, therefore, with reasonable confidence, that all the important claims still likely to be brought against the Naval Prize Fund are known. The figure of £126,500, mentioned in the Resolution, refers to these known claims. It has been arrived
at after a very close and careful estimation of what will probably have to be paid, and it has been made by those who are acquainted with all the facts and have been concerned in the negotiations with the claimants up to date.
Obviously it would not be advisable for me to go into the details as to individual claims. I am hopeful, however, that the Committee will be satisfied with my assurance that the circumstances in each case have been fully considered by the two Departments, and that the sum it is proposed to transfer is not expected to yield any advantage to the Treasury as against the Naval Prize Fund. Such risk of loss as has been incurred is certain to fall on the Treasury. It may interest the Committee to know that the total face value of the claims as they stand is much greater than £126,500. Indeed, it very nearly equals the whole residue of the Naval Prize Fund.

Sir BASIL PETO: What is the total amount?

11.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: About £278,000. The proposed settlement with the Treasury allows for a substantial abatement from these claims as a result of negotiations or litigation. During the last Debate on this Resolution a suggestion was made that the sum handed over to the Treasury under the settlement should be returnable to the Naval Prize Fund so far as it was not actually spent. As I have already explained, this figure of £126,500 has been most carefully estimated, and nothing in our opinion is less likely than that an unexpended surplus will arise. It will be much the same as the case of the little boy with an apple; we do not expect there is going to be any core. Putting aside this aspect of the matter altogether, in principle a settlement under which the taxpayer takes all the risk and the Naval Prize Fund takes all the advantage is not one to which the Treasury could be expected to agree or one for which the Admiralty could reasonably press. There is also the practical difficulty; that, if the Bill becomes law, it will terminate the existence of the Naval Prize Tribunal, and, once that body ceases to exist, there is no possibility of determining authoritatively and precisely what part of the
sums paid would have been chargeable against the Fund and what against the Exchequer.
It seems to me, therefore, that the only practical alternative to such a settlement as we are proposing in the Bill is that of keeping the Fund and the Tribunal in existence and going on as we are at present. Administratively there is no great objection to this, as the expense involved is very small, but the disadvantage of such a course is that it would not be possible to make any distribution of funds to naval charities before 1931 at the earliest. By an Order in Council of November, 1926, claims for prize money can be met until 1930, and even then, if we keep the Tribunal in existence, if things go on until 1931, we should have to keep some funds in hand in order to meet unknown future claims, because there is no time limit for bringing claims in the Prize Court. If it is admitted that a settlement between the Naval Prize Fund and the Exchequer freeing the former from present and future claims is sound, then the only question for decision is at what amount these claims should be valued. On this point the Government have taken and are proposing to act on the best expert advice, advice which has been given quite impartially, and with the sole object of arriving at a fair and equitable solution.

Mr. AMMON: I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but I think it is important that it should be made clear, before we allow this Resolution to pass, exactly what has happened to the whole of the money. At first glance it looks like another raid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a fund in order to stabilise his somewhat shaky Budget. Perhaps I have not quite gathered the purport of what the Parliamentary Secretary said. I gather that the total amount in the Fund is in the neighbourhood of £287,000, and that a certain sum of money, £126,500, is to be earmarked for possible claims on the Naval Prize Fund. That leaves, in round figures, £150,000. I suggest that there is a possibility of disposing of this money in some other way than that suggested, and perhaps to the advantage of persons concerned with the naval service. It looks as if the money would have been better advanced to naval charities rather than go into the
pocket of the Treasury. If the whole of the claims against the Fund amount to the sum suggested, it looks as if the balance of £150,000 ought to be distributed to various naval charities. That is a point on which I am in doubt.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The whole £150,000, the whole of the residue is to go to naval charities. That is the object of the Resolution.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think the hon. and gallant Member has made the reasons for not accepting this Resolution more formidable than before. We are told that there are two classes of claims against the Fund, one by the merchants and the other by the Navy. The hon. and gallant Member has now told us, for the first time, that settlement of the outstanding payments to the merchants is now proceeding. If that be the case, I cannot understand the necessity for the Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member has also told us that if this Resolution were not passed it would be impossible to dispense any of this money to naval charities before 1931; but on the last occasion when the Resolution was before the House he made great play of the generosity of the Fund and gave a list of charities which had benefited from the Fund.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am afraid that I cannot make myself clear to the hon. Member. The hon. Member is parodying what I said. The point is, that a great deal of this money has already been distributed, but there are outstanding claims against the Fund. What we are proposing to do now is to get rid of those outstanding claims by transferring them to the Treasury, and paying a certain sum of money to the Treasury, and we are asking for £126,000 for that purpose. It is perfectly clear that the claims far exceed the amount for which we are compounding with the Treasury.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the hon. and gallant Member seriously stand there and say that this proposal is one to rob the taxpayers; that he has made a very good bargain with the Treasury and that the taxpayers are to put up the money which the Treasury has consented to give away to him? The proposition is perfectly ludicrous. If that is not the
case, and if the Admiralty is to lose money, then the money is coming out of the pockets of the sailors. In either event, I hope that the House will reject the Resolution. In giving a list of the charities which had benefited from the Fund the hon. and gallant Member mentioned that £100,000 had gone to Greenwich Hospital. He said that there was; a lien against that money. He further said that he proposed to give another £50,000 to Greenwich Hospital, with a lien against that money. Why a lien? This money was to be charged with any prospective claim that might be put forward by the merchants.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Again, the hon. Member has failed to understand. There are claims for prize money that still may come in. That is a different kind of claim from the claims that are being made by the merchants. The point is, that so long as these claims can be made, we have to be prepared to pay them, and we have until 1931. Until that time comes, the money has been given to Greenwich Hospital, with this lien upon it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Precisely. I did not misunderstand. I say that if the money can be given to Greenwich Hospital subject to a lien, it can be given to other naval charities, subject to a lien, Why cannot the money which is being transferred to the Treasury be given to the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust, subject to a lien, so that if the merchants substantiate their claims, the trust will become liable for the money in the same way as Greenwich Hospital? In order to show the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I do not misunderstand him, I will take him through the figures which he gave on the last occasion when this subject was discussed. This is a monstrous proposition and should certainly be rejected, if no argument can be brought forward in support of it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the receipts of the Fund were £16,035,000 and the disbursements were: £14,437,000 to the Imperial Fleet; £318,000 to Dominion sailors; £195,000 to naval charities, and £611,500 to shipowners—a total of £15,561,000. Subtracting this sum from the total receipts leaves in the hands of the Admiralty £474,000. Of that sum £123,000 is to be handed to the Treasury, leaving £348,000 in the hands of the
Admiralty. Against that sum £100,000 has been handed conditionally to Greenwich Hospital in the circumstances described, and £195,500 has been earmarked as against claims by sailors, leaving in the hands of the Admiralty £52,000.
The Admiralty, therefore, even if the Resolution is carried, will retain control of £348,000, which means that a staff has to be kept at the Admiralty to administer this sum and, if the sum is handed over to the Treasury, an additional staff will have to be established by the Treasury in order to administer it. When questions are raised about it, whose files are the Treasury going to consult? They are going to consult the files that are at the Admiralty and, therefore, no possible economy is to be derived from handing over the fund to the Treasury. The only argument for handing this money over to the Treasury is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a good bargain. If he is making a good bargain, the taxpayer is making a bad bargain. He says that in the near future all these claims will be determined. Therefore there is no possible object in robbing the taxpayer of this money. I believe the naval charities are being robbed of this money. They would derive great benefit from the use of the money immediately and my suggestion is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should drop the Resolution and hand the money over to the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust. I observe that he has handed over some to the British Legion. Why? It is not a naval charity and this money is supposed to be given to naval charities under the Act. The British Legion is concerned with other Services. [HON. MEMBERS: "As well as the Navy!"] Certainly, but I say it is not specifically a naval charity. When the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust was established in 1922, the object was to co-ordinate all naval charities and make a central fund, from which all benefits to the Navy could be distributed. That fund is supervised by the Admiralty and administered by the Fleet, and they are the proper bodies to have that money. Heaven forbid that I should make any reflection on the British Legion, but the House of Commons having passed an Act stating that the naval charities were to benefit from any surplus of this kind, that money
should go to the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust. Rather than see it distributed to the British Legion, I would like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to establish a Royal Dockyard Benevolent Trust.

The CHAIRMAN: I hardly see how the distribution of the Fund arises on the Resolution. The main question is that a certain sum is to be payable to the Exchequer and the Exchequer is to take up legal liabilities. After that, presumably there will be a surplus, but this Resolution says nothing as to the distribution of the surplus.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, but I am saying that this money should not go to the Treasury at all and that under the Naval Prize Act it ought to be going to naval charities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has admitted that a large sum has been handed over and that a further sum is to be handed over to Greenwich Hospital. I say that the sum of money here, namely, £126,000, should go to the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust, subject to exactly the same lien as has been imposed on the Greenwich Hospital money. I cannot resist the conclusion that this Bill is another Clause of the Economy Act of two years ago, which took away £1,000,000 of the health insurance fund of the sailors and soldiers, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he proceeds with this Resolution, the Navy will not forget it.

Sir B. PETO: I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to influence his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hand over something in the nature of conscience money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sometimes receives conscience money, but on this occasion I want him to pay some out. That is why I have put down an Amendment to reduce this £126,000 to £100,000. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) is very anxious that no one, not even the British Legion, should share any of this money with the naval charities. I want to ask, What are naval charities? All this Naval Prize Fund arises out of the late War, and I am sure it will not be disputed that the Merchant Service, together with the Navy, neither of whom could have carried on without the other, were equally responsible for the taking of these prizes out of which the Fund arises, and all of them
suffered equal loss. The Committee may perhaps remember that in 1919 the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had an interview with the representatives of the Merchant Service, and after various cases had been pointed out to him in which on naval service men of the Merchant Service had lost their lives and left widows and dependants and so forth, the right hon. Gentleman made a very definite pledge.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this arises on this particular Motion. It may possibly arise on the Bill that is to be set up, but this is merely a question as between the fund and the Exchequer and not as to its ultimate distribution.

Sir B. PETO: I appreciate the point, Mr. Hope, but this is the last opportunity I shall have to get something which is now going to be handed over to the Exchequer as an addition to the sum which will be available for naval charities; and, therefore, I put my Amendment on the Paper with a view to trying to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take a slightly additional risk in respect of these claims which, we are told, came from Greek merchants and others, against the Naval Prize Fund, and now do what has often been pressed on the Admiralty, and that is to take a rather more liberal view of what are naval charities.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member can do this by his Amendment. It does not seem to me to have any such effect whatever. There is a certain legal claim on the Naval Prize Fund pending, which has to be transferred to the Exchequer. After that, there will be some over in the Naval Prize Fund which apparently will be distributed according to an existing scale, but this giving of more or less does not affect the distribution of the surplus at all.

Sir B. PETO: I had hoped that possibly or probably if they had a larger fund at their disposal, they would take a rather more liberal view, and, therefore, I wanted the Admiralty to have rather more, and the Chancellor rather less.

The CHAIRMAN: There will be, presumably, the Second Beading of a Bill, on which these points should be raised. They do not come under this Resolution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I must draw the attention of the House to what happened on 7th May, when we had this matter before the Committee. On that occassion there was a discussion, in which a number of Members took part in all parts of the House, and the point of view was put clearly that the bargain or the arrangement come to between the Admiralty and the Exchequer needed reconsideration. I moved an Amendment that the money that we were handing over to the Treasury should be held on trust to the Admiralty, so that if there were less money required to meet the claims of the merchants, the naval charities would get the benefit of it. I did not press that matter to a Division, although I was supported in all parts of the House, and I got a promise from the First Lord, who said that he was quite ready to examine this question further, and that if I were to withdraw my Amendment he was prepared to look into the matter. He said he did not wish to do any injustice to the men, but he wished to make a good bargain. Where is the First Lord of the Admiralty to-night? I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done his best to make a rather complicated matter clear, but the First Lord, from the time we dealt with the Naval Estimates, except for an occasional Prayer Book Debate, has not graced the Assembly very much with his oratory. When it is a question of a sum running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, taking the two sections together, the First Lord, who is supposed to be looking after the interests of "Poor Jack," and not merely looking the part, ought to be here. We ought to have a word from the First Lord as to why he has not been able to find any concession that could be given.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I told the hon. and gallant Member that the greatest trouble had been taken to see whether the arrangement was liberal or not by the First Lord's instructions, and it has been done.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Apparently the trouble has been so great that the First Lord is exhausted and cannot be here to put this matter before Parliament. This is, after all, the Assembly that decides these matters.
We have the duty of seeing that the Treasury does not squeeze out one extra penny that could go otherwise to naval charities or to the benefit of naval causes. On the last occasion we had the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the First Lord of the Admiralty all trying to explain this thing, and the House was not satisfied. Now we have only the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I believe that the House is still not satisfied. At any rate, I wish to ask this question before we leave this matter. I would first draw attention to the simple fact that you have here a number of claims which are not being heard; only notices have been given of them, and the Treasury and the Admiralty legal advisers are able to meet in conclave and decide that they will be met by a sum of £126,500. When one receives what one regards as a fictitious claim and finds that the sum is worked out to the last shilling and the last penny, one's suspicions are heightened. When I see a sum like that, I only wonder why 6s. 8d. was not put on the end of it.
When were the last new claims against the Fund received? It is nearly 10 years after the end of the War and surely there must be some limit to the claims? Who are the principal claimants now, other than Americans? Are there claims from the Continent, and is there any reason why the House should not be told what nations are still claiming? If the claims were good ones, surely it is obvious that the merchants would have made them long ago. They would not have waited all these years, because if the present Government remain in office very much longer we may be landed in a new war and then they will have little chance of getting their money. It is doubtful whether valid claims can have been made in recent times. Why was it not possible to carry out the, original suggestion made in May last? The Government have had two months to look into the matter. Why should not this money be held in trust and why should not the Treasury agree that if they have made a mistake and over-estimated the possible claims by merchants against the Fund that in that case the residue should go to the naval authorities? I do not want to controvert your ruling, Mr. Hope, as to discussing
where the money should go, but at question time I did raise one rather hard case, and I would ask the hon. and gallant Member when he has money at his disposal to recommend that a portion should go to assist these particular men.

Captain FANSHAWE: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member can have as short a memory as he would like us to believe. He knows perfectly well that there is no time limit to these claims and the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) knows that there has been no robbery, but that a just decision has been arrived at between the Admiralty and the Treasury; and that just solution is that £126,000 will be paid to the Treasury in respect of the claims known of at the present time. That leaves £157,500 to be disposed of, and we learn from the Memorandum that this will be given to naval charities. Without wishing to go against your ruling, Mr. Hope, I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Member to see that some of the money should go to deal with tuberculosis among the men of the Navy.

The CHAIRMAN: That is going far beyond the scope of what is permissible.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to say that I think the Government are justified in the step they have taken. What do their opponents say? That the whole of this £278,000 ought to be given to charities. I should have thought that they were in earnest in this matter. After all, this money is prize money, and it is to meet claims for that purpose. A certain amount ought to be handed back to be kept in order to meet these claims. I shall support the Government in this matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think some reply should be given to the questions which have been put.

HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Agreed!"

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In answer to a question, I said that it was considered inadvisable to make public the nature of the claims in existence, but if the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull would care to come and see me, I will explain the matter.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is he prepared to give a guarantee that if there is any money left after meeting these claims—
and there may be a considerable sum—it will be diverted to naval charities?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want any details, but surely we can be told the date of the last claims? Were they made within the last three years? Is there any reason why that information should not be given?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM indicated dissent.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

EDUCATIONAL, ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) [EXPENSES].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the reorganisation of
educational and other endowments in Scotland, to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray the expenses incurred by any Commissioners appointed thereunder, and to remunerate their Secretary, Assistant Commissioners, and other officers.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-four Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.